UNIVERSITY  OF 

ILLINOIS  LIBRARY 

AT  URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

ACES 


NOT/CE:  Return  or  renew  all  Library  Material,.  The  Minimum  Fee  for 
each  Lost  Book  is  $50.00. 

The  person  charging  this  material  is  responsible  for 
Is  remrn  to  the  .LaYy  from  which  it  was  withdrawn 
on  or  before  the  Latest  Date  stamped  below. 


io  renvw  woi»   i^i»»f»"— 

UNIVERSITY    OF    ILLINOIS    L.BRARY    AT    URBANA-CHAMPA.GN 


ACES 

JUN  1  6  2005 


UNIVERSITY  OF   ILLINOIS. 

Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 


URBANA,  JUNE,  1903. 


BULLETIN    No.  85. 


RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL  COWS  ON 
DAIRY    FARMS. 


BY  ARTHUR  J.  GLOVER,  B.  AGR.,  CHIEF  ASSISTANT  IN  DAIRY  HUSBANDRY, 
AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION. 


SUMMARY. 

Eight  herds  are  reported  in  this  bulletin,  containing  144  cows  that 
have  completed  a  year's  work.  The  eight  dairies  had  176  cows  at  the 
beginning  of  the  test,  but  32  of  them  were  sold  before  the  end  of  the 
year. 

Some  of  the  herds  returned  their  owners  a  good  profit,  others  a  small 
profit,  and  one  herd  was  kept  at  a  loss.  Six  herds  out  of  the  eight 
contained  cows  that  did  not  pay  for  the  feed  they  consumed. 

In  estimating  the  profit  or  loss  on  a  cow  it  was  counted  that  the  calf 
paid  for  her  keep  while  dry  and  the  skim  milk  paid  for  labor. 

The  cow  that  yielded  the  most  product  gave  8,949  pounds  of  milk, 
and  made  472  pounds  of  butter.  The  poorest  cow  produced  1,482 
pounds  of  milk,  68  pounds  of  butter,  and  the  average  production  for  all 
the  herds,  except  Curler's  (D),  was  4,721  pounds  of  milk,  3.67  percent 
fat,  173  pounds  of  butter  fat,  and  202  pounds  of  butter. 

l 


2  BULLETIN    NO.    85. 

It  would  not  give  the  average  production  of  the  ordinary  cows  in 
Illinois  if  Curler's  herd  were  included,  for  he  has  been  applying  the 
scales  and  test  for  a  number  of  years,  hence  his  improved  dairy.  It 
should  also  be  considered  that  the  men  who  took  up  this  work  had  been 
interested  in  improving  their  dairies,  and  undoubtedly  have  better 
cows  than  the  average. 

The  most  profitable  cow  gave  a  net  profit  of  $57.22  and  the  poorest 
cow  was  kept  at  an  actual  loss  of  $17.83.  The  average  net  profit  was 
$9.96  per  cow. 

The  above  facts  show  clearly  that  the  average  production  of  the 
Illinois  dairy  cow  can  be  doubled  and  the  profit  increased  fourfold. 

This  can  be  done  with  little  expense  to  the  farmer.  It  will  require 
better  care  and  better  feed  for  his  stock,  and  the  application  of  the 
scales  and  the  Babcock  test  so  that  he  can  select  and  breed  his  animals 
more  intelligently. 

The  results  in  this  bulletin  indicate  that  good  care  and  good  feed  with 
judicious  selection  are  the  prime  factors  necessary  for  profitable  milk 
and  butter  production. 

For  over  a  year  the  Department  of  Dairy  Husbandry  of  the  Univer- 
sity of  Illinois  has  been  conducting  field  work  among  the  dairymen 
of  the  state.  A  number  of  them  were  persuaded  to  weigh  and  sample 
each  mess  of  milk  a  sufficient  number  of  times  during  the  year  so  that 
the  performance  of  each  cow  could  be  estimated  with  a  considerable 
degree  of  accuracy.  It  has  been  demonstrated  by  a  number  of  our 
experiment  stations  that  many  cows  are  kept  in  the  dairy  at  a  very 
small  profit  and  some  at  an  actual  loss.  In  order  to  determine  the 
facts  and  to  lead  the  dairymen  to  realize  their  full  force  and  meaning 
a  man  was  sent  into  the  field  to  persuade  a  number  of  them  to  keep 
a  record  of  every  cow  in  their  herds.  While  this  bulletin  gives  no  facts 
new  to  science,  yet  it  presents  a  line  of  work  on  which  we  have  but 
little  data  and  it  brings  the  farmers  face  to  face  with  facts  that  exist 
upon  their  own  farms.  It  shows  them  that  some  herds  are  kept  at  a 
good  profit,  some  at  a  small  profit,  and  others  at  an  actual  loss. 

How  THE  FARM  TEST  WAS  MADE. 

The  farmers  who  took  up  this  work  were  required  to  weigh  and 
sample  the  milk  from  each  cow  in  the  herd  every  seventh  week  for  four- 
teen consecutive  milkings.  After  each  cow  was  milked  the  milk  was 
poured  into  a  weighing  pail,  weighed,  and  the  weight  recorded  on  a 
milk  sheet  directly  under  the  cow's  name.  A  small  sample  of  milk 
was  then  taken  with  a  sample  dipper  or  a  milk  thief  and  put  into  the 
sample  bottles.  Corrosive  sublimate  tablets  were  used  to  preserve 
the  samples  of  milk.  Instructions  were  given  to  each  man  to  shake  the 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF    INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


composite  samples  each  day  so  as  to  mix  the  fresh  samples  with  the 
rest  of  the  milk  and  keep  the  cream  from  becoming  dry  or  hard  on  the 
sides  of  the  bottle.  The  jars  that  were  used  for  keeping  the  composite 
samples  were  one  pint,  tin  top,  covered  bottles.  When  the  period  of 
weighing  and  sampling  was  completed  the  samples  were  tested  either 
on  the  farm  or  at  the  creamery. 

APPARATUS. 

The  things  necessary  for  carrying  on  the  work  were:  A  spring 
scale  for  weighing  the  milk;  a  small  dipper  or  milk  thief  for  taking  the 
samples;  bottles  for  holding  the  composite  samples;  corrosive  sublimate 
for  preserving  them;  and  milk  sheets.  All  these  were  furnished  by  the 
Experiment  Station.  Each  cow  was  given  a  name  or  number  which 
was  placed  at  the  top  of  the  milk  sheet  so  that  the  weights  of  milk  could 
be  put  directly  under  her  name  or  number.  Cut  No.  1  shows  all  the 
necessary  apparatus  for  carrying  on  the  work,  and  Table  I  is  a  sample 
of  a  farmer's  milk  record. 

TABLE  I. — SAMPLE  OF  FARMER'S  MILK  RECORD  FOR  ONE  WEEK,  FROM  JULY  30, 
p.  M.,  TO  AUGUST  6,  A.  M. 

MILK — POUNDS. 


i^i 

^i-J 

*- 

*d 

oi 

& 

g| 

to 
o 

« 

CXoJ 

a 

1*1 

& 

3  6 
ffljz; 

3;! 

-t- 

o 
B 

s 

31 

3J 

1 

CE 

c3 

O 

K 

fi 

l 

20.5 

14.1 

11.3 

15.0 

15.4 

10.9 

6.9 

7.4 

7.5 

5.5 

15.1 

2 

13.5 

6.8 

6.5 

10.2 

13.2 

8.3 

5.2 

3.9 

5.1 

3.9 

10.3 

3 

22.2 

16.8 

11.7 

15.0 

17.0 

11.0 

6.7 

7.9 

7.7 

5.2 

15.8 

4 

14.2 

5.2 

8.2 

10.7 

14.2 

8.5 

5.2 

4.9 

4.6 

3.9 

10.9 

5 

20.3 

15.7 

6.0 

13.7 

16.3 

10.7 

6.8 

6.5 

7.3 

4.9 

15.7 

6 

16.7 

7.0 

9.2 

11.9 

15.6 

9.5 

5.1 

5.1 

6.1 

4.6 

12.2 

7 

18.5 

15.5 

4.7 

14.1 

16.7 

9.6 

7.0 

6.0 

6.6 

5.0 

14.5 

8 

16.0 

7.8 

7.3 

11.2 

14.4 

8.7 

5.0 

4.9 

6.2 

3.9 

14.7 

9     !  22.0 

14.5 

13.5 

16.4 

18.5 

10.7 

6.9 

7.2 

6.9 

5.3 

15.8 

10 

14.0 

9.5 

6.9 

10.5 

15.0 

8.3 

4.8 

4.6 

5.3 

3.6 

11.4 

11 

19.9 

9.8 

4.0 

12.9 

17.5 

11.0 

6.7 

6.1 

7.0 

5.2 

14.9 

12 

14.5 

13.0 

6.8 

11.5 

14.5 

8.1 

4.4 

4.6 

5.8 

3.9 

11.3 

13 

22.6 

13.2 

6.7 

16.1 

18.4 

11.6 

8.6 

7.4 

7.3 

7.8 

16.1 

14 

15.4 

7.1 

8.8 

11.3 

14.7 

8.6 

4.3 

5.2 

5.9 

4.2 

11.7 

Total.. 

250.3 

156.0 

111.6 

180.5 

221.4 

135.5 

83.6 

81.7 

89.3 

66.9 

190.4 

Fat,  % 

3.2 

2.8 

3.2 

3.5 

3.2 

3.4 

4.6 

4.0 

4.6 

4.4 

3.0 

Fat,lb. 

8.00 

4.36 

3.57 

6.31 

7.08 

4.60 

3.84 

3.26 

4.10 

2.94 

5.71 

ARRANGING  APPARATUS. 

A  considerable  amount  of  time  can  be  saved  by  arranging  scales, 
sample  bottles,  and  milk  sheet  in  such  a  way  that  the  weighing,  record- 
ing the  weight,  and  sampling  the  milk  can  be  done  with  as  few  steps 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


CUT  1.    SCALE   FOR  WEIGHING  MILK.     RECORD  SHEET  AND  COMPOSITE  SAMPLES. 


and  motions  as  possible.  After  the  most  desirable  place  in  the  barn 
has  been  chosen  for  weighing  and  sampling,  the  scales  can  be  suspended 
from  the  ceiling  so  as  to  hang  near  the  milk  sheet  which  can  be  tacked 
to  a  board  and  hung  on  the  wall,  or  fixed  on  an  inclined  shelf  projecting 
from  the  wrall.  After  the  milk  from  each  cow  is  weighed,  a  sample 
should  be  taken  and  placed  in  the  jar  bearing  the  cow's  name  or  number. 
The  sample  bottles  can  be  arranged  on  either  side  of  the  milk  sheet,  or 
if  convenient,  above  it.  If  there  are  two  or  more  milkers,  the  sample 
bottles  can  be  arranged  so  that  each  milker  will  have  his  bottles  together 
and  arranged  in  the  same  order  in  which  the  cows  are  milked.  This 
method  saves  time  in  finding  the  right  sample  bottle. 

TIME  CONSUMED  IN  WEIGHING  AND  SAMPLING. 

The  length  of  time  required  to  weigh  and  sample  the  milk  depends 
entirely  upon  the  quickness  of  the  man  who  is  doing  it.  Some  men 
will  say  that  it  takes  but  little  time  to  weigh  and  sample  each  cow's 
milk,  while  others  complain  of  the  length  of  time  necessary  to  do  the  work. 
It  will  take,  on  an  average,  about  one  minute  to  each  cow,  or  two  minutes 
a  day.  This  indicates,  for  the  seven  weeks  that  it  is  done  during  the  year, 


1903.]  RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS.  5 

about  one  hour  and  thirty-eight  minutes  for  each  cow  tested.  With 
this  amount  of  time  expended,  the  farmer  can  have  a  complete  record 
of  every  cow  in  his  herd.  From  this,  with  a  knowledge  of  what  he  is 
feeding,  he  will  know  at  the  end  of  the  year  whether  she  has  been  a 
source  of  profit  or  loss  to  him;  and  furthermore,  he  will  know  from  which 
cows  to  select  heifers  for  his  dairy.  Considering  the  time  that  is  con- 
sumed in  doing  this  work,  it  seems  strange  that  more  dairymen  do  not 
have  their  herds  tested.  Many  of  them  can  weigh  and  sample  each 
cow's  milk  every  seventh  week,  and  then  have  the  buttermaker  test  the 
samples  for  them  at  the  creamery.  With  the  percent  of  fat  and  the 
weights  of  milk  they  can  estimate  for  themselves  the  performance  of 
every  cow  in  their  herds.  The  importance  of  doing  this  work  will  be 
shown  further  on  in  this  bulletin. 

CALCULATING  THE  AMOUNT  OF  MILK  AND  BUTTER  FAT. 

The  milk  was  weighed  and  sampled  during  the  fourth  week  of  the 
seven-week  periods.  From  the  total  amount  of  milk  that  each  cow  gave 
during  this  time,  and  the  percent  of  fat,  was  calculated  the  amount 
of  butter  fat  produced  in  the  week.  From  these  results  were  estimated 
the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  each  cow  produced  during  the  three 
weeks  before,  and  the  three  weeks  following  the  test.  The  cow's  yearly 
record  was  made  up  from  these  tests,  and  in  this  way  the  total  amount 
of  milk  and  butter  fat  that  she  produced  during  the  entire  year  was 
determined.  It  may  be  objected  to  that  this  method  did  not  secure 
results  absolutely  correct.  On  this  it  may  be  said  that  the  chief  object 
was  to  secure  data  from  which  cows  could  be  compared  with  each  other 
and  that  this  object  was  fully  attained  even  though  the  totals  may 
have  been  either  slightly  too  large  or  too  small.  Check  methods  show 
however,  that  the  data  are  very  close  to  the  actual  amounts  produced. 
In  many  cases  the  dairymen  also  kept  an  approximate  account  of  the 
grain  and  roughage  that  each  cow  consumed  during  the  year.  Where 
this  was  done  the  records  are  of  exceptionally  high  value,  for  they  clearly 
show  the  profit  or  loss  of  every  cow  kept  in  the  dairy. 

THE  DIFFERENT  METHODS  THAT  MAY  BE  USED  IN  WEIGHING  AND  SAM- 
PLING. 

There  are  several  ways  that  records  from  each  cow  in  the  dairy  can 
be  obtained.  The  method  used  in  obtaining  the  records  given  in  this 
bulletin  was  as  follows:  The  farmer,  every  seventh  week,  weighed 
and  sampled  each  cow's  milk  for  fourteen  consecutive  milkings.  The 
amounts  of  milk  yielded  each  day  were  added  and  from  the  percent  of 
butter  fat  which  the  milk  contained,  was  determined  the  amount  of 
butter  fat  each  cow  produced  during  the  week.  From  these  results 


6  BULLETIN  NO.  85.  [June, 

were  estimated  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  each  cow  produced 
the  three  weeks  before  and  the  three  weeks  following  the  test. 

The  Dairy  Department  of  the  Wisconsin  Experiment  Station  had 
its  patrons  weigh  and  sample  one  day  each  week  for  the  whole  year. 
From  the  different  weights  and  tests  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter 
fat  that  each  cow  produced  in  the  entire  year  was  estimated. 

The  testing  of  the  milk  each  week  is  too  much  for  the  average  farmer 
to  do,  but  taking  composite  samples  of  milk  of  several  milkings  gives  a 
very  good  average  of  the  per  cent  of  fat  contained  in  the  milk,  and  can 
be  done  by  any  one  if  he  chooses.  Fairly  accurate  results  can  be  obtained 
by  weighing  and  sampling  the  milk  every  thirteenth  week  and  calculating 
the  results  the  same  way  as  when  the  weighing  and  sampling  were  done 
every  seventh  week.  The  method  of  weighing  and  sampling  each  cow's 
milk  every  seventh  week  for  several  consecutive  milkings,  or  three  and 
one-half  days,  gives  very  good  results.  The  results  can  be  multiplied 
by  two  which  would  equal  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  produced 
for  one  week,  then  estimated  the  same  as  if  the  weighing  and  sampling 
were  done  the  entire  week.  The  composite  samples  that  are  but  three 
and  one-half  days  old,  are  in  better  condition  for  testing  than  samples 
that  are  a  week  old.  The  farmers  will  take  more  pains  with  the  work  if 
it  does  not  become  tedious  to  them. 

The  accuracy  of  records  obtained  by  weighing  and  sampling  each 
cow's  milk  at  regular  times  during  the  year  is  often  doubted.  As  a 
check  a  comparison  was  made  between  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat 
sold  from  two  farms  to  a  creamery  and  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter 
fat  as  determined  from  weighing  and  sampling  each  cow's  milk  every 
seventh  week  for  fourteen  consecutive  milkings  during  the  year.  In  one 
case  there  was  found  a  difference  of  2.2  percent  of  butter  fat,  and  .0015 
percent  in  milk,  making  a  difference  of  4.67  pounds  of  butter  fat  and 
8.09  pounds  of  milk  per  cow;  in  the  other  case  a  difference  of  .038  per- 
cent fat,  and  1.98  percent  in  milk,  or  .27  pounds  of  butter  fat  and  120.3 
pounds  of  milk  per  cow.  From  these  results  it  is  seen  that  by  carefully 
weighing  and  sampling  each  cow's  milk  every  seventh  week  during  her 
period  of  lactation  records  can  be  secured  which  are  substantially  cor- 
rect. 

OBJECT  OF  THE  WORK. 

There  is  no  better  way  of  finding  out  the  merits  of  a  dairy  animal 
when  giving  milk  than  to  use  the  scales  and  the  Babcock  test.  With 
the  weights  of  milk  produced,  the  percent  of  butter  fat  and  the  length 
of  her  milking  season,  together  with  the  feed  consumed,  the  value  of  a 
cow  for  the  dairy  can  be  determined.  The  object  of  getting  dairymen 
to  do  this  work  is  to  determine  which  of  the  individual  cows  in  their 
herds  are  the  most  profitable,  so  that  the  owners  may  cull  out  the  poor 


1903.]  RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS.  7 

cows  and  keep  the  profitable  ones ;  to  show  them  the  importance  of  better 
feeding  and  caring  for  their  stock;  and  the  importance  of  selecting  better 
sires  for  their  herds.  A  dairy  animal  should  be  selected  for  the  amount 
of  milk  and  butter  fat  which  she  yields  during  the  year  rather  than  on 
points  of  fancy  or  form.  It  is  a  reasonably  safe  rule  in  selecting  dairy 
cows  to  go  upon  the  results  obtained  from  the  scales  and  the  Babcock 
test.  If  she  is  a  good  breeder,  that  also  should  be  taken  into  considera- 
tion. If  the  performance  of  each  cow  in  the  herd  is  known,  the  heifers 
can  be  selected  from  the  best  cows  and  when  these  heifers  become  fresh 
the  test  should  be  applied  to  them  and  the  inferior  ones  culled  out. 
This  can  only  be  done  when  we  have  an  intelligent  understanding  of  each 
cow  and  her  capability  of  producing  milk  and  butter  fat. 

ELEMENTS  OF  DANGER  IN  THE  USE  OF  SCALES  AND  BABCOCK  TEST. 

While  the  scales  and  Babcock  test  can  be  of  great  service  in  the  selec- 
tion of  our  dairy  animals,  they  must,  however,  be  used  with  judgment. 
Dairy  cows  have  their  "  off  years, "  and  this  must  be  considered  when  the 
herd  is  being  culled.  If  we  do  not  bear  this  fact  in  mind,  we  are  apt 
to  sell  some  of  the  best  cows  from  our  herds.  The  writer  has  in  mind 
the  cow  Sweet  Briar,  of  the  Minnesota  Experiment  Station,  that  pro- 
duced ,  /or  ten  years  an  average  of  358.07  pounds'of  butter  a  year,  while 
in  1898  she  produced  only  206.62  pounds  of  butter,  but  in  1899  she 
made  306.53  pounds,  and  in  1901  370.53  pounds.  If  the  merits  of 
Sweet  Briar  had  been  wholly  based  on  the  work  she  did  in  1898  she 
would  have  been  classed  as  a  very  ordinary  cow,  and  perhaps  sold. 
The  great  value  of  scales  and  Babcock  test  lies  in  their  continued  use 
in  the  dairy  herd  and  not  in  one  year's  test.  Good  heifers  usually  come 
from  the  best  dairy  cows,  but  it  sometimes  happens  that  a  promising 
heifer  may  do  very  poorly  the  first  year.  In  such  cases  the  heifer's 
individuality  together  with  her  breeding  should  be  considered  before 
she  is  sold.  The  testing  of  cows  should,  however,  be  carried  on  in  every 
dairy  if  a  systematic  selection  is  to  be  made. 

A  good  cow  seldom  has  two  "  off  years  "  in  succession. 

THE  VARIATION  IN  FLOW  AND  PERCENT  OF  FAT  IN  MILK. 

It  has  often  been  asked  why  it  is  necessary  to  weigh  and  sample  each 
milking  for  a  week.  By  weighing  and  testing  each  milking  separately 
we  usually  find  considerable  variation  in  milk  yield  and  fat  content. 
The  following  tables  show  to  what  extent  a  cow  will  vary  in  quantity 
of  milk  and  percent  of  fat  from  one  milking  to  another.  These  tables 
are  taken  from  records  of  cows  that  were  tested  for  the  Holstein-Friesian 
Advanced  Registry. 


BULLETIN   NO.   85. 


[June, 


TABLE  2. — SHOWING  THE  YIELD  OP  MILK  AND  PERCENT  BUTTER  FAT  OF  EACH 

MILKING  FOR  ONE  WEEK. 


ECHO  BETTINA  HERBERT'S  RECORD. 

1902. 

Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Total 
milk,  Ib. 

Total 
fat,  Ib. 

March   10,    Morning  

12.3 
9.0 
10.1 
14.2 
10.0 
11.0 
15.6 
11.0 
10.9 
17.6 
12.2 
12.0 
16.5 
12.2 
11.7 
18.0 
12.6 
12.3 
17.2 
13.0 
12.8 

4.60 
3.80 
3.30 
3.10 
3.20 
3.00 
3.70 
4.20 
3.80 
3.30 
4.05 
3.30 
3.10 
3.70 
3.35 
3.50 
4.20 
4.10 
3.50 
4.20 
3.60 

.5658 
.3420 
.3333 
.4402 
.3200 
.3300 
.5772 
.4620 
.4142 
.5808 
.4941 
.3960 
.5115 
.4514 
.39195 
.6300 
.5292 
.5043 
.6020 
.5460 
.4608 

31.4 
35.2 
38.5 
41.8 
40.4 
42.9 
43.0 

1.2411 
1.0902 
1.4532 
1.4709 
1.35485 
1.6635 
1.6088 

Noon  

Evening 

March   11,    Morning 

Noon  . 

Evening  

March   12,    Morning  

Noon  .   .  . 

Evening 

March   13,    Morning  

Noon  

Evening  

March   14,    Morning         .        .    . 

Noon  .    . 

Evening  

March   15,    Morning  

Noon  

Evening  .      

March   16,    Morning  

Noon  

Eveninc  . 

MAID  CLOVERDALE'S  RECORD. 


Sept.     23,    Morning     

18  1 

2  80 

506 

Noon  . 

11  5 

3  00 

345 

Evening  

15  7 

3.00 

.471 

45.3 

1.322 

Sept.     24,    Morning  

18  4 

4  20 

772 

Noon  

13  0 

3  10 

403 

Evening  

15.6 

2.60 

.405 

47.0 

1.580 

Sept.     25,    Morning  .  

16  7 

2  00 

.334 

Noon  

16  4 

3  30 

541 

Evening  

13  4 

2  80 

375 

46  5 

1  250 

Sept.     26,    Morning 

17  3 

2  60 

449 

Noon  . 

18  0 

4  50 

810 

Evening  

11  9 

2  40 

285 

47  2 

1  544 

Sept.     27,    Morning  

20  4 

2  70 

550 

Noon  

14  5 

2  90 

420 

Evening  

15.2 

2.80 

.425 

50  1 

1.395 

Sept.     28,    Morning  

18  5 

3.80 

.703 

Noon  

14  5 

2  80 

.406 

Evening  

14  5 

2  30 

333 

47  5 

1  442 

Sept.     29,    Morning  .  . 

20  9 

3  20 

668 

Noon  .   .    . 

14  3 

2  40 

343 

Evening  

15  9 

3  00 

.477 

51  1 

1  488 

The  above  table  readily  shows   the  importance  of  weighing  and 
sampling  the  milk  for  more  than  one  milking,  if  the  average  test  of  the 


1903.]  RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL    COWS.  9 

cow  is  to  be  obtained.  Maid  of  Cloverdale,  for  example,  tested  on  the 
morning  of  September  25,  two  percent,  and  at  noon,  September  26, 
4.50  percent.  Had  either  been  taken  as  her  actual  test  it  would  have 
been  very  misleading,  for  her  average  test  for  that  particular  week  was 
2.99  percent. 

THE  BASIS  UPON  WHICH  THE  PROFIT  OR  Loss  OF  THE  Cow  is 

COMPUTED. 

It  is  very  difficult  to  express  the  true  value  of  the  dairy  cow  in  dollars 
and  cents.  But  since  the  profit  or  loss  of  most  of  the  cows  tested  has 
been  given,  it  is  perhaps  well  to  state  the  basis  upon  which  the  profit 
or  loss  was  calculated.  The  value  of  the  product  that  the  cow  yielded 
was  based  upon  the  amount  of  butter  fat  that  she  made,  and  the  market 
price  of  butter  fat  at  the  time. 

The  value  of  the  skim  milk,  the  value  of  the  calf,  and  the  value  of  the 
manure  produced  by  the  cow  were  not  credited  to  her,  while  on  the 
other  hand  the  cow  was  not  debited  with  the  amount  of  labor  expended 
in  her  care  nor  the  amount  of  feed  she  consumed  when  dry.  The  cow 
was  simply  credited  with  the  amount  of  butter  fat  she  produced,  and 
charged  for  feed  consumed  when  she  was  giving  milk.  The  calf  will 
usually  pay  for  the  cow's  board  when  dry  and  the  skim  milk  for  the 
labor  it  takes  to  care  for  her.  This  method  of  calculation  is,  perhaps, 
a  little  unjust  to  some  cows,  for  it  is  possible  to  have  two  cows  yield  the 
same  amount  of  butter  fat  and  one  give  a  profit  and  the  other  a  loss.  If, 
for  example,  one  milks  ten  months  and  the  other  but  six  months  in  the 
year  to  yield  equal  amounts  of  butter  fat,  which  sometimes  happens, 
one  cow  is  charged  with  ten  month's  feed  and  the  other  with  only  six 
month's. 

Red  Bird  in  herd  "B"  and  Duchess  in  herd  "C"  are  examples 
of  this  kind.  Red  Bird  milked  ten  months  and  charged  $1.28  cents 
for  her  board,  and  Duchess  milked  six  months  and  gave  a  profit  of 
$9.16,  and  each  yielded  the  same  amount  of  butter  fat. 

The  rations  for  the  cows  were  not  weighed  each  day.  A  number 
of  dishes  of  meal  was  weighed  in  order  to  get  the  average  amount  of  feed 
that  the  measure  held  and  the  number  of  dishes  that  each  cow  received 
a  day  was  recorded.  Cut  and  shreded  corn  stover  and  ensilage  were 
estimated  in  the  same  manner.  The  hay  was  also  weighed  at  different 
times. 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "A." 

Herd  "A"  was  composed  of  natives,  grade  Shorthorns,  grade  Jer- 
seys, and  grade  Holsteins.  The  average  weight  of  each  cow  was  1,000 
pounds.  The  herd  was  not  bred  for  dairy  purposes.  Moreover,  they 


10 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


CUT  2.    Cow  No.  6,  HERD  A,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  1,838  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.43%;  95  LB.  BUTTER. 

neither  showed  dairy  form  nor  capabilities  of  giving  large  flows  of  milk, 
nor  producing  large  amounts  of  butter  fat.  Nearly  every  cow  showed 
some  signs  of  disorder.  They  were  not  in  a  thrifty  condition.  A  num- 
ber of  them  aborted  during  the  year,  while  others  failed  to  get  with 
calf  and  were  sold.  Some  of  them  were  disposed  of  so  early  in  the  test 
that  their  records  are  not  calculated  with  the  rest  of  the  herd. 

There  were  ten  cows  kept  in  this  herd  whose  milk  was  not  weighed 
or  tested.  It  is  unfortunate  that  the  owner  could  not  see  the  importance 
of  weighing  and  testing  each  one  of  these  cows,  but  the  average  amount 
of  milk  and  butter  fat  that  each  of  the  untested  cows  produced  for  the 
year  will  be  given,  for  a  record  of  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat 
that  was  sold  from  all  the  cows  was  kept. 

The  herd  did  not  yield  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  that  it 
should  for  the  amount  of  grain  consumed.  While  the  owner  did  not 
keep  an  accurate  enough  account  of  the  grain  and  roughage  each  cow 
ate  to  be  reported  upon,  he  fed  a  ration  to  his  cows  that  was  largely 
made  up  of  corn  and  other  foods  rich  in  carbohydrates  and  containing 
a  small  per  cent  of  protein.  The  cows  received  a  small  allowance  of 
bran  with  the  corn  meal  from  October  1  to  January  1.  During  the 
months  of  January  and  February.,  to  the-cows  giving  the  largest  flows 
of  milk,  was  given  the  following : 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OP   INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


11 


RATION  1. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Corn  meal  

10 

8.91 

.790 

6.670 

.430 

lOc 

Silage  

35 

7.31 

.315 

3.955 

.245 

3.5c 

Timothy  hay   

10 

8.68 

.280 

4.34 

.140 

5c 

Total  nutrients  .  . 

24.90 

1.385 

14.965 

.815 

18.  5c 

This  ration  was  altogether  too  rich  in  carbohydrates  and  contained 
a  very  low  per  cent  of  protein.  If  this  farmer  had  sold  more  of  his 
corn  and  bought  some  mill  feed  he  would,  with  less  expense,  have  im- 
proved the  ration.  For  example,  a  ton  of  corn  meal  would  at  this  time 
have  paid  for  more  than  a  ton  of  grano-gluten.  If  a  ration  were  made 
from  five  pounds  of  grano-gluten  and  three  pounds  of  corn  meal  with 
the  same  amount  and  kind  of  roughage  as  contained  in  the  above, 
the  ration  would  be  far  better  and  cheaper.  Such  a  ration  would  contain 
the  following  nutrients : 

RATION  2. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Grano-gluten  

5 

4.71 

1.335 

1.94 

.620 

4.5c 

Corn  meal  

3 

2  67 

237 

2  001 

.129 

3c  •«  »% 

Silage  

35 

7  31 

315 

3  955 

245 

3.5c 

Timothy  hay  

10 

8.68 

.280 

4.340 

.140 

5c 

Total  nutrients  .  . 

23.38 

2.167 

12.236 

1.134 

16.  Oc 

A  number  of  the  cows'  udders  became  feverish  and  hard  during  the 
time  that  they  were  being  fed  so  much  corn.  Four  of  them  were  giving 
milk  from  only  three  teats.  It  seems  that  excessive  corn  feeding  must 
have  had  something  to  do  with  the  general  unsatisfactory  condition  of 
the  herd,  especially  in  the  months  of  January  and  February,  and  per- 
haps the  cause  of  four  of  them  losing  the  use  of  one-quarter  of  their 
udders.  The  rye  and  corn  meal  were  mixed  equal  parts  by  weight, 
and  about  eight  pounds  of  the  mixture,  together  with  timothy  hay  and 
corn  silage,  was  the  ration  they  received  until  May  1,  when  ground 
oats  was  substituted  in  the  place  of  rye.  The  cows  were  turned  out 
to  pasture  about  May  25,  but  were  given  a  small  allowance  of 
silage  to  July  1.  From  this  time  on  to  the  completion  of  the  year's 
work  they  received  nothing  but  grass.  The  ration  which  the  cows 
received  from  March  1  to  May  1  was  somewhat  better  than  the 
ration  fed  in  January  and  February,  but  it  could  have  been  much  im- 
proved with  mill  feed.  The  ration  for  fresh  cows  was  about  as  follows ; 


12 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


CUT  3.     Cow  No.  10,  HERD  A,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  3,833  LB.  MILK  ; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.37%;  150  LB.  BUTTER. 

RATION  3. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Rye  

4 

3.54 

.396 

2.704 

.044 

4.0c 

Crushed  corn  and  cob 
meal  

4 

3.40 

.176 

2.400 

.116 

4.0c 

Silage  

35 

7.31 

.315 

3.955 

.245 

3.5c 

Timothy  hay  

7 

6.08 

.196 

3.038 

.098 

3.5c 

Total  nutrients  .  . 

20.33 

1.083 

12.097 

.503 

15.  Oc 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  ration  which  contains  but  1.083  pounds  of 
protein  costs  nearly  as  much  as  Ration  2,  which  contains  2.167  pounds 
of  protein.  It  readily  shows  that  by  exchanging  some  of  the  home- 
grown grain  for  mill  stuff  the  ration  could  not  only  have  been  made 
better  but  actually  cheaper.  It  can  be  said  that  the  cows  in  this  herd 
did  a  very  ordinary  year's  work,  but  considering  the  individuality  of 
each  animal  in  the  herd,  the  general  condition  of  their  health,  together 
with  unskillful  feeding,  it  is  not  at  all  surprising  that  the  results  are  no 
better. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OP    INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


13 


Cur  4.     Cow  No.  15,  HERD  A,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  6,145  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.63%;  260  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $18.40. 

YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  A, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  No.  15  

6,145 

3.63 

223 

260 

Poorest  cow,  No.  37  

1,482 

3.97 

58 

68 

Average  record  of  cows  tested  
Average  record  of  entire  herd  

3,970 
3,361 

3.55 
3.55 

141 
119 

164 
139 

It  was  found  that  the  average  cow  must  produce  about  140  pounds 
of  butter  fat  last  year  to  pay  for  her  board,  since  the  average  price  for 
butter  fat,  when  sold  to  the  creameries,  was  twenty-two  cents.  Calcu- 
lating the  results  upon  that  basis,  the  cows  that  were  tested  yielded  a 
profit  of  twenty-three  cents.  To  ascertain  the  amount  of  product 
yielded  by  each  of  the  untested  cows  in  the  herd  for  the  year,  it  was 
necessary  to  subtract  the  amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  yielded  by  the 
eighteen  cows  that  were  tested  from  the  total  amount  of  milk  and  butter 
fat  that  was  sold  from  this  dairy.  In  this  calculation  a  liberal  amount 
of  milk  was  estimated  for  house  use  and  for  feeding  of  calves. 

Total  amount  of  milk  sold  from  Farm  "  A" 97,720    Ib. 

yielded  by  tested  cows 76,060     " 

«          «  »  "        the  ten  untested  cows, 21,660     » 


14 


BULLETIN   NO.    85. 


[June, 


The  average  amount  of  milk  yielded  by  each  untested  cow ....    2,166    Ib. 

"    total  amount  of  butter  fat  sold  from  Farm  "  A  " 3,554     " 

yielded  by  tested  cows 2,751     " 

ten  untested  cows 803     " 

"    average  amount  of  butter  fat  yielded  by  each  cow  un- 
tested          80     " 

Calculating  for  the  whole  herd,  and  estimating  that  it  takes  140 
pounds  of  butter  fat  to  pay  for  a  cow's  board,  there  is  a  loss  of  $4.54 
a  cow,  or  each  cow  should  have  produced  20.64  pounds  more  butter 
fat  to  have  paid  for  her  keep. 

The  best  cow  in  this  herd  gave  a  profit  of  $18.40,  while  the  poorest 
was  kept  at  an  actual  loss  of  $17.83. 

TABLE  3. — RECORD  OP  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "A"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


GROUP  1. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  100  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


6  o 

•jT          O 

&i 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 
per- 
cent. 

Fat, 
Ib. 

o  a/ 

4> 

•^"3 

.2 

$ 

37 

12 

Grade  Jersey  

11-  8-01 

1482* 

3.97 

58 

68 

147 

6 

3 

Native  

5-29-02 

1838 

4.43 

81 

95 

210 

8 

Native  .  . 

2-13-02 

2470 

3.87 

95 

111 

210 

GROUP  2. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  140  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


1 

4 

Grade  Shorthorn  

10-25-02 

3176 

3.45 

109 

128 

196 

31 

10 

Grade  Shorthorn  

1-17-02 

3535 

3.18 

11? 

131 

245 

8 

3 

Native  

9-  6-01 

2740 

4.16 

114 

133 

259 

10 

4 

Native  .  . 

3-  5-02 

3833 

3.37 

m 

150 

245 

34 

46 

10 
3 

Grade  Shorthorn,  Abr  
Native  

12-  5-01 
1-  8-02 

4474 
3766 

2.97 
3.67 

133 
138 

155 
161 

294 
259 

GROUP  3. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  175  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


33 

10 

Grade  Holstein  . 

4-  9-02 

3550 

3.94 

140 

163 

210 

30 

9 

XT  x-   (  Abr.  . 

9-29-02 

Native  j  Cly 

12-18-01 

4306 

3.55 

153 

178 

299 

29 

Native,  Abr.  . 

3-21-02 

3916 

4.00 

156 

183 

210 

4 

3 

Native  

4-13-02 

3651 

4.31 

157 

183 

365 

44 

4 

Native  . 

11-16-01 

5082 

3  15 

160 

186 

294 

GROUP  4. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  225  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


13 

4 

Grade  Holstein  . 

2-25-02 

4895 

3.87 

189 

221 

290 

\?, 

4 

Grade  Holstein  

10-30-01 

6824 

2.80 

191 

223 

308 

16 

9 

Grade  Holstein   

1-  4-01 

5776 

3.33 

192 

224 

308 

15 

9 

Grade  P.  S.  H.  . 

H_  4_oi 

6145 

3.63 

m 

260 

294 

*  The  tenth's  place  in  the  "  milk  "  column  and  the  tenth's  and  hundredth's 
places  in  the  "butter  fat"  and  "butter "columns  have  been  eliminated  for  the  con- 
venience of  the  reader.  The  average  "percent  fat,"  the  average  production,  and 
the  profit  or  loss  of  the  herd,  however,  were  figured  before  the  elimination.  This 
method  not  only  applies  to  herd  "  A, "  but  to  all  the  herds  tested. 


1903.1 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


15 


THE  REPORT  OF  HERD  "  B. " 

This  herd  was  composed  largely  of  common  native  and  grade  Hoi- 
stein  cows.  There  were  a  number  of  fairly  good  dairy  cows  in  the  herd 
and  a  number  of  promising  heifers.  The  cows  weighed  an  average, 
about  1,050  pounds.  The  general  health  of  the  herd  was  good.  A  few 
of  the  cows  aborted  during  the  year  and  some  of  them  had  caked  udders. 
A  few  of  them  were  sold  on  this  account.  A  number  of  them  were  dis- 
posed of  so  early  in  the  test  that  their  records  are  not  calculated  with  the 
rest  of  the  herd  but  are  given  separately.  On  the  whole  it  can  be  said 
that  the  cows  received  good  care  and  were  fairly  well  fed  throughout 
the  year. 

The  cows  were  fed  from  October  1  to  November  1,  some  ear  corn 
and  stalks  and  pasture.  During  the  months  of  November  and  Decem- 
ber, the  cows  received  the  following : 


RATION  4. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Bran  

6 

5.31 

.774 

2.406 

.204 

5.4c 

Corn  meal   

6 

5.35 

.474 

4.002 

.258 

6.0c 

Millet  hay  

8 

7.04 

.256 

3.880 

.080 

4.0c 

Corn  stover  

10 

5.95 

.170 

3.240 

.070 

2.0c 

Total  nutrients.  .  . 

23.65 

1.674 

13.528 

.612 

17.  4c 

This  ration  would  have  been  considerably  better  if  two  pounds  of 
oil  meal  or  gluten  meal  had  been  substituted  for  three  pounds  of  corn 
meal  and  would  have  cost  no  more. 

During  the  months  of  January  and  February  the  fresh  cows  received 
seven  pounds  of  bran,  four  pounds  of  corn  meal,  oat  straw,  and  corn 
stover  ad  libitum. 

In  March  and  April  they  received  a  ration  about  as  follows : 

RATION  5. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 
matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Bran  

6 

5  31 

.774 

2.406 

.204 

5.4c 

Gluten  feed 

3 

2  70 

699 

1.521 

.081 

3.3c 

Clover  hay  

5 

4.23 

.340 

1.790 

.085 

2.5c 

Corn  stover  

8 

4.76 

.136 

2.592 

.056 

1.6c 

Total  nutrients  

17.00 

1.949 

8.309 

.426 

12.  8c 

Oat  straw,  ad  libitum. 

16 


BULLETIN   NO.    85. 


[June, 


This  is  a  balanced  ration  and  contains  enough  nutrients  for  cows 
giving  large  flows  of  milk.  If  some  succulent  food,  such  as  roots  or 
silage,  had  been  added,  it  would  have  been  still  better. 

In  May,  the  fresh  cows  or  the  ones  giving  the  most  milk,  received  the 
following  : 

RATION  6. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Shorts  

7 

6.17 

.854 

3.50 

.266 

6.3c 

Gluten  feed  

3 

2.70 

.699 

1.521 

.081 

3.3c 

Clover  hay  

5 

4.23 

.340 

1  790 

.085 

2.5c 

Millet  hay  

8 

7  04 

256 

3  880 

.080 

4.0c 

Total  nutrients  .  . 

20.14 

2.14? 

10.691 

.512 

16.  Ic 

This  is  another  very  good  ration  as  it  supplies  enough  nutriment  for  a 
cow  producing  350  pounds  of  butter  fat  a  year.  Each  cow  in  the  herd 
during  the  rest  of  the  year  received  two  pounds  of  shorts  a  day,  besides 
plenty  of  blue  grass  pasture. 

YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  B, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  lb. 

Fat,  % 

.  Fat,  lb. 

Butter,  lb. 

Best  cow,  Hartwell  No.  2  

6,197 

3.99 

247 

288 

Poorest  cow,  Brindle  No.  1   

3,731 

2.88 

107 

125 

Average  record  of  entire  herd  . 

5.360 

3.52 

1SS 

220 

Spotty  No.  1  charged  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk,  40.7  cents 
and  12.6  cents  for  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Red  Bird  charged  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk,  70.9  cents,  and 
23.2  cents  for  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

The  average  cost  of  this  herd  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk  was 
57.0  cents  and  16.1  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Spotty  No.  1  gave  a  profit  of  $25.32  and  Red  Bird  charged  $1.28 
for  her  board. 

The  average  profit  of  each  cow  was  $12.12. 

The  average  price  of  grain  and  roughage  from  September  1,  1901, 
to  September  1,  1902,  was  about  as  follows: 
Bran $18.00  per  ton.         Oil  meal $28.00  per  ton. 


Shorts 18.00 

Corn  meal 20.00 

Corn  cob  meal  ...  20 . 00 

Grano-gluten 18.00 

Gluten  meal 28.00 

Gluten  feed  .        .22.00 


Clover  hay 10.00 

Timothy  hay 10.00 

MiUethay 10.00 

Corn  stover 4.00 

Corn  silage 2.00 

Pasture $1 . 00  per  month. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


17 


CUT  5.     SPOTTY  No.  1,  HERD  B,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  7,711  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.20%;  288  LB.  BUTTER;   NET  PROFIT,  $25.32. 


CUT  6.     RED  BIRD,  HERD  B,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  4,974  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.04%;  176  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  Loss,  $1.28. 


18 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


The  price  of Jgrain  is  based  upon  purchase  price  in  the  city  market 
and  the  price  of  roughage  is  based  upon  the  purchase  price  at  the  farm. 
When  the  cow  is  charged  the  above  prices  for  farm  products  the  farmer 
receives  a  profit  on  his  land  and  the  profit  which  the  cow  gives  him  is  over 
and  above  what  he  could  have  received  for  his  products  if  he  had  sold 
them  upon  the  market,  and  moreover,  the  cows  are  often  fed  that  which 
is  not  marketable.  Take  corn  stover  for  example,  what  would  it  be 
worth  if  it  was  not  for  the  live  stock  kept  upon  the  farms? 

The  average  prices  of  butter  fat  when  sold  to  the  creameries  for  the 
different  months,  were  as  follows : 


September,  1901 19c 

October,  1901  19c 

November,  1901  20c 

December,  1901 22c 

January,  1902 24c 

February,  1902 28c 

March,  1902 28c 


April,  1902 26c 

May,  1902 22c 

June,  1902 21c 

July,  1902 20. 5c 

August,  1902  19c 

September,  1902  20. 5c 

October,  1902 23c 


TABLE  4. — SHOWING  PROFIT  OR  Loss  FOR  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  B  "  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


GROUP  1.     KEPT  AT  A  Loss. 


Name  of  cow. 

Milk. 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
ib. 

Lb. 
but- 
ter. 

Gross 
returns. 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or 

loss. 

Red  Bird. 

4,974 

3  04 

151 

176 

$33.99 

$35  .  27 

$1.28 

Belle  . 

4,412 

3  38 

149 

174 

33  26 

34  30 

1.04 

Brindle  No.  1    . 

3.731 

2.88 

107 

125 

25.41 

26.41 

1.00 

GROUP  2. — KEPT  AT  A  SMALL  PROFIT. 


Alice  . 

4231 

3  97 

168 

196 

$38  61 

$34  30 

$4  31 

Little  Lamie  

3,956 

3  05 

120 

140 

27.32 

21.95 

5.37 

Harry  Cow. 

4,891 

3  14 

153 

179 

35  00 

27.93 

7.07 

Sleepy  Eve  . 

4,190 

4.20 

176 

205 

40.53 

31.67 

8.86 

GROUP  3. — KEPT  AT  A  FAIR  PROFIT. 


Black  No.  2  .  . 

5,474 

3  53 

193 

225 

$44  28 

$32.91 

$11.37 

Spotty  No.  2  

6,720 

3  34 

224 

262 

50.85 

38.51 

12.34 

Roaney  

5,705 

3  94 

225 

262 

52.43 

39.46 

12.97 

Dora  

4,989 

3  70 

184 

215 

39.51 

26.40 

13.11 

Black  No.  1  . 

6,179 

3  05 

188 

220 

44  36 

30.71 

13.65 

GROUP  4. — KEPT  AT  A  GOOD  PROFIT. 


Hart  well  No.  2  .  .    . 

6,197 

3  99 

247 

288 

$55.47 

$30.49 

$24.98 

Spotty  No.  1  . 

7,711 

3  20 

247 

288 

56  73 

31.41 

25  32 

1903.] 


RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


19 


TABLE  4 — Continued. 
GROUP  5. — KEPT  AT  A  VERY  FAIR  PROFIT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb. 
but- 
ter. 

Gross 
returns. 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or 
loss. 

Bottle  

5,450 

3.66 

199 

232 

$42.79 

$27.37 

$15.42 

Beauty  

6,402 

3.82 

245 

285 

53.62 

36.79 

16.83 

Hartwell  No.  1  

4,421 

4.20 

186 

217 

38.24 

21.10 

17.14 

Brindle  No.  2   

4,683 

3.43 

161 

187 

38.52 

20.85 

17.67 

Clara  

6,101 

3.89 

237 

277 

54.85 

35.95 

18.90 

Pet  

6,793 

3.10 

211 

246 

48.60 

28.18 

20.42 

TABLE  5. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  B"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 
GROUP  1. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  160  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Age, 

yr. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb. 
but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Brindle,  No.  1  .... 
Little  Lamie  . 

15 

8 

Native  .  .  . 

« 

2-  2-02 
3-  1-02 

3,731 
3,956 

2.88 
3  05 

107 

120 

125 

140 

203 

275 

Belle  

3 

Gr.  Hoist. 

11-10-01 

4,412 

3.38 

149 

174 

290 

Red  Bird  .    .    . 

6 

9-30-01 

4,974 

3.04 

151 

176 

300 

Harry  Cow. 

10 

« 

2-  3-02 

4,891 

3.14 

153 

179 

240 

GROUP  2. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  200  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Brindle  No.  2 

4 

Native  .  .  . 

4,683 

3.43 

161 

187 

210 

Alice   

3 

Gr.Holst. 

11-13-01 

4,231 

3.97 

168 

196 

287 

Sleepy  Eye  

5 

Native    .  . 

12-25-01 

4,190 

4.20 

176 

205 

320 

Dora     

6 

Gr.  Hoist. 

3-21-02 

4,989 

3.70 

184 

215 

310 

Hartwell  No.  1  .... 
Black  No.  1  

8 
8 

Native  .  .  . 
Gr.Holst. 

5-27-02 
1-28-02 

4,421 
6,179 

4.20 
3.05 

186 
188 

217 
220 

270 
275 

"          2  

4 

2-21-02 

5,474 

3.52 

193 

225 

340 

Bottle 

5 

«  ' 

4-11-02 

5,450 

3.66 

199 

232 

300 

GROUP  3. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  250  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Pet  

5 

Gr.Holst. 

2-12-02 

6,793 

3.10 

211 

246 

260 

Spotty  No.  2    
Roaney. 

8 
7 

Native  .  .  . 
« 

9-24-01 
H_  7_()i 

6,720 
5,705 

3.34 
3.94 

224 
225 

262 
262 

300 
305 

Clara  

5 

Gr.  Hoist. 

10-  1-01 

6,101 

3.89 

237 

277 

300 

Beauty  

4 

Native  .  .  . 

10-  5-01 

6,402 

3.82 

245 

285 

305 

Spotty  No.  1  
Hartwell  No.  2  

12 
12 

u 

u 

7-31-02 
2-21-02 
3-  1-02 

7,711 
6,197 

3.20 
3.99 

247 
247 

288 
288 

280 
267 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "  C.  " 

This  herd  was  composed  of  natives,  grade  Shorthorns,  grade  Hoi- 
steins,  one  Red  Poll  and  two  grade  Jerseys.  The  average  weight  of 
the  cows  was  about  1,050  pounds  and  they  were  in  good  health  during 
the  whole  year.  There  were  no  abortions  or  caked  udders  during  the 
time  the  test  was  made.  A  number  of  the  cows  were  sold  early  in  the 
test  because  of  their  rapid  falling  off  in  milk  flow  when  about  three 


20 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


months  along  in  the  period  of  lactation.  This  is  a  very  common  fault 
with  a  great  many  cows  kept  in  the  dairy,  and  it  is  not  noticed  by  the 
owners  so  much  as  it  should  be.  They  remember  the  cow  when  she 
gave  a  full  pail  of  milk.  The  herd  received  good  care  during  the  year 
and  was  kept  in  a  warm  barn  during  the  winter  where  it  received  a 
fairly  good  ration.  The  fresh  cows  in  October  to  November  were  fed 
daily  about  three  pounds  of  bran,  shock  corn,  and  pasture.  From  No- 
vember 15  to  January  1,  the  ration  consisted  of  the  following  feeds: 
Bran,  five  pounds;  corn  meal,  three  pounds;  corn  stover,  ad  libitum.  If 
the  farmer  could  have  given  his  cows  ten  pounds  of  alfalfa  or  clover  hay 
and  less  corn  stover  it  would  have  been  a  considerably  better  ration. 
In  January  and  February  a  little  better  ration  was  fed.  It  was 
about  as  follows : 

RATION  7. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Bran  

5 

4.42 

.645 

2.005 

.170 

4.5c 

Corn  meal  .  . 

5 

4  45 

395 

3  335 

215 

5  Oc 

Gluten  feed  

1 

90 

.233 

.507 

.027 

l.lc 

Timothy  hay  .  . 

5 

4  34 

140 

2.170 

.070 

2.5c 

Corn  stover  . 

12 

7  14 

204 

3  888 

.084 

2.4c 

Total  nutrients.  . 

21.25 

1.617 

11.905 

.566 

15.  5c 

CUT  7.     CRAZY,  HERD  C,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  6,945  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.23%;   343  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $31.55. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF    INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


21 


Cur  8.     DUCHESS,  HERD  C,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  4,229  LB.  MILK-; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.59%;   177  LB.  BUTTER:  NET  PROFIT,  $9.16: 


CUT  9.     JERSEY,  HERD  C,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  5,498  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.48%;  287  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $34.77. 


22 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


This  ration  would  have  been  still  better  if  the  corn  meal  had  been 
reduced  two  pounds  and  gluten  feed  increased  to  four  pounds.  During 
the  months  of  March,  April,  and  May,  to  the  cows  giving  the  largest 
flow  of  milk  were  given  the  following: 

RATION  8. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Bran  

5 

4.42 

.645 

2.005 

.170 

4.5c 

Gluten  feed    

2 

1.80 

.466 

1.014 

.054 

2.2c 

Oil  meal     

1 

.91 

.293 

.327 

.078 

1.4c 

Timothy  hay           

15 

13.02 

.420 

6.510 

.210 

7.5c 

Total  nutrients  

20.15 

1.824 

9.856 

.512 

15.  6c 

The  cows  were  turned  out  to  pasture  about  May  20,  and  as 
soon  as  grass  was  plentiful  they  received  no  grain  during  the  rest  of  the 
test.  They,  however,  received  some  forage  in  connection  with  the 
pasture.  Green  peas  and  oats  were  fed  in  July,  and  in  August  green 
sorghum.  It  can  be  said  that  the  herd  was  well  cared  for  the  whole 
year,  and  moreover,  every  cow  was  fed  as  near  as  possible  according  to  the 
amount  of  milk  and  butter  fat  that  she  was  yielding.  It  must  be  borne 
in  mind  that  the  rations  given  above  were  fed  to  cows  that  were  produ- 
cing the  most  milk  and  butter  fat  and  not  to  the  strippers. 


YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  C, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  Crazy  

6,945 

4  23 

294 

343 

Poorest  cow,  Harrison  

2,721 

3  96 

108 

126 

Average  vield  of  entire  herd. 

4,942 

3  90 

192 

224 

Jersey  produced  butter  fat  the  cheapest.  She  charged  29.7  cents 
to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk,  and  6.6  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter 
fat. 

Harrison  charged  97.7  cents  to  make  100  pounds  of  milk,  and  24.6 
cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

The  average  cost  of  this  herd  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk  was 
55.5  cents,  and  14.2  cents  to  produce  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Jersey  gave  a  profit  of  $34.77,  and  Harrison  charged  SI. 27  for  her 
keeping. 

The  average  profit  for  each  cow  in  the  herd  was  $16.22. 


1903.1 


RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


23 


TABLE  6. — SHOWING  PROFIT  OR  Loss  FOR  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  C"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 
GROUP  1. — KEPT  AT  A  Loss. 


Name  of  cow. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb. 
but- 
ter. 

Gross 
returns 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or 
loss. 

Harrison  

2721 

3.96 

108 

126 

$25.34 

$26.61 

$1.27 

Ella  .  . 

3.519 

3.64 

128 

149 

29.12 

30.98 

1.86 

GROUP  2.  —  KEPT  AT  A  SMALL  PROFIT. 

White  Face. 

3,865 
4,118 
4,229 

3.56 
3.83 
3.59 

137 
157 
151 

160  !  $31.69 
184  i     36.68 
177        37.47 

$31.30 
28.29 
28.31 

$   .39 
8.39 
9.16 

Millie  

Duchess.   .  .          .... 

GROUP  3. — KEPT  AT  A  FAIR  PROFIT. 


Victoria  

2,979 

4.34 

129      151 

$26.28 

$15.81 

$10.47 

Little  Brownie     

5,121 

3  75 

192      224 

45.18 

32  60 

12.58 

Lady  .   . 

5,015 

3  94 

197      230 

42  71 

27  72 

14.99 

GROUP  4. — KEPT  AT  A  VERY  FAIR  PROFIT. 


Pet  

5,590 

3  43 

191 

223 

$45  15 

$25  66 

$19.49 

Old  Line  Back 

5,926 

3  55 

210 

245 

50  34 

28  47 

21.87 

Queen  ;  

4,857 

3.73 

181 

211 

38.90 

21.61 

17.29 

Black  Hawk  

6,500 

3  99 

259 

303 

58  52 

34.88 

23.64 

Babe  ... 

5,186 

4  68 

242 

283 

54  78 

33  60 

21.18 

GROUP  5. — KEPT  AT  A  GOOD  PROFIT. 


Stubbornness  

5,924 

3.50 

207 

242 

$45.19 

$20.39 

$24.80 

Roaney  

6,013 

3.97 

238 

278 

57.46 

29.00 

28.46 

Crazy  . 

6,945 

4  23 

294 

343 

66  77 

35.22 

31.55 

Jersey  . 

5,498 

4  48 

246 

287 

51  15 

16  38 

34.77 

TABLE  7. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "C"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


GROUP  1. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  160  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Age, 
yrs. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.    of 
butter 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Harrison  

? 

Gr.  Hoist. 

7-  6-01 

2  721 

3  96 

108 

126 

246 

Ella  

9 

9-25-01 

3  519 

3  64 

128 

149 

295 

Victoria  . 

4 

u 

6-  5-02 

2  979 

4  34 

129 

151 

214 

White  Face  .... 
Duchess  

2 

8 

« 

Native  . 

9-15-01 
1-  2-02 

3,865 
4229 

3.56 
3  59 

137 
151 

160 
177 

290 
197 

GROUP  2. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  200  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Millie  

?, 

Gr.  Hoist. 

10-20-01 

4  118 

3  83 

157 

184 

330 

Queen  

4 

Gr.  S.  H.  . 

3-28-02 

4  857 

3  73 

181 

211 

260 

Pet  

Gr.  Hoist. 

11-26-01 

5  590 

3  43 

191 

223 

305 

Little  Brownie.  . 
Lady  . 

8 
9 

Native  .  .  . 
Gr.  S.  H.  . 

10-  3-01 
3-28-02 

5,121 
5015 

3.75 
3  94 

192 
197 

224 
230 

245 
303 

24 


BULLETIN   NO.   85. 


[June, 


TABLE  7 — Continued. 
GROUP  3. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  300  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Age, 
yrs. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 
butter. 

Days 
in 

milk. 

Stubbornness  .  . 
Old  Line  Back  . 
Roaney  

9 
12 

Gr.  Hoist. 
Native  .  .  . 
Gr.  S.  H. 

3--29-02 
12-20-02 
1_  5_02 

5,924 
5,926 
6,013 

3.50 
3.55 
3.97 

207 
210 
238 

242 

245 

278 

246 
250 
245 

Jersey  

q 

Gr.  Jer.  . 

1-  3-02 

5,498 

4  48 

246 

287 

275 

Babe  

6 

• 

10-  3-01 

5,186 

4.68 

242 

283 

365 

Black  Hawk  .  .  . 
Crazy  

4 
10 

Gr.  Hoist. 
Gr.RedP. 

9-26-01 
10-  4-01 

6,500 
6,945 

3.99 
4.23 

259 
294 

303 
343 

335 
335 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "  D. " 

The  cows  in  this  herd  consisted  of  full  blood  Jerseys,  grade  Jerseys, 
full  blood  Holsteins,  grade  Holsteins,  natives,  and  grade  Shorthorns. 
There  were  sixty  cows  in  the  herd  when  the  test  began  and  forty-seven 
of  them  remained  through  the  year.  Thirteen  of  the  cows  were  sold 
during  the  time  the  test  was  being  inade  for  they  were  found  to  be  infe- 
rior and  unprofitable  animals.  The  herd  contained  a  great  many  very 
fine  dairy  cows  and  they  made  some  very  good  records.  The  cows  were 
in  a  good  condition  during  the  whole  year  and  were  kept  in  a  scrupu- 
lously clean  and  well-ventilated  barn  which  was  scrubbed  once  a  day 
and  white  washed  twice  a  year.  The  sanitary  condition  was  nearly  per- 
fect. The  cows  were  not  only  well  cared  for,  but  they  received  well 
balanced  rations  during  the  entire  year.  The  results  of  this  herd  readily 
show  the  importance  of  taking  good  care  of  dairy  cows  and  of  feeding 
them  well.  Some  of  the  rations  that  the  herd  received  at  different 
times  during  the  year  show  clearly  how  well  these  cows  were  fed. 

From  September  1  to  the  middle  of  October,  to  the  cows  giving 
the  largest  flow  of  milk,  the  rations  consisted  of  six  pounds  of  grano- 
gluten  and  all  the  green  corn  that  they  would  eat  up  clean.  From 
October  15  to  December  7,  the  ration  to  the  best  milkers  was  about 
as  follows: 

RATION  9. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Grano-gluten  . 

5 

4  71 

1  335 

1  940 

.62 

4.5c 

Corn  meal  

3 

2  67 

237 

2  001 

.129 

3.0c 

Corn  silage  

45 

9  40 

405 

5  085 

.315 

4.5c 

Timothy  hay  

5 

4  34 

.140 

2.170 

.070 

2.5c 

Total  nutrients  

21.12 

2.117 

11.196 

1.134 

14.  5c 

1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


25 


The  ration  fed  from  December  7  to  February  1  was  as  follows: 

RATION  10. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Shorts     .    .    . 

3 

2.65 

.366 

1.50 

114 

2  7c 

Corn  meal  . 

?, 

1  78 

158 

1  334 

086 

2  Oc 

Gluten  meal  

3 

2.64 

.963 

1.236 

.075 

4.2e 

Corn  silage  

45 

9.40 

.405 

5.085 

.315 

4.5c 

Hay  .  . 

5 

4.34 

.140 

2.170 

.070 

2.5c 

Total  nutrients.  . 

20.81 

2.032 

11.325 

.660 

15.  9c 

The  cows  seemed  to  do  better  when  fed  grano-gluten  and  corn  meal 
than  when  they  were  fed  shorts,  corn  meal,  and  gluten  meal. 

The  ration  from  February  1  to  March  15  was  five  pounds  of  grano- 
gluten,  three  pounds  of  corn  meal,  and  fifty  pounds  of  silage  and  timothy 
hay.  From  this  time  on  until  the  cows  were  turned  out  to  grass,  they 
received  about  the  following : 

RATION  11. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Grano-gluten  

7 

6.60 

1.869 

2.716 

.868 

6.3c 

Corn  meal  .       

3 

2.67 

.237 

2.001 

.129 

3  Oc 

Silage  

60 

12.54 

.540 

6.780 

.420 

6.0c 

Total  nutrients   .  .  .  .  :  

21.81 

2.646 

11.497 

1.417 

15  3c 

It  will  be  noticed  that  this  ration  contains  no  hay,  corn  silage  being 
the  only  roughage  that  the  cows  received.  The  cows  did  very  well  on 
this  ration  and  when  they  were  turned  out  to  pasture,  which  was  about 
June  1,  they  were  in  good  condition.  In  June  the  cows  received 
about  four  pounds  of  grano-gluten  a  day,  besides  a  grass  pasture. 

In  July  and  August  they  received  nothing  but  pasture  grass.  The 
above  rations  apply  more  to  the  general  feeding  of  the  best  milkers 
in  the  herd,  the  strippers  and  poor  milkers  getting  according  to  the 
amount  of  milk  they  were  producing. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  rations  given  to  the  cows  during  the 
year  did  not  contain  a  large  amount  of  grain,  but  each  one  contained  a 
liberal  amount  of  nutrients  for  cows  that  were  giving  a  large  flow  of 
milk  and  yielding  large  amounts  of  butter  fat.  It  will  also  be  noticed 
that  each  ration  contained  over  two  pounds  of  protein.  This  can  be 
accounted  for  when  grano-gluten  is  compared  with  bran  or  oats,  for  it 
contains  twice  as  much  digestible  protein.  Therefore,  it  is  not  necessary 
to  feed  so  many  pounds  of  the  grano-gluten  as  we  would  have  to  feed  of 
bran  or  oats  to  get  the  same  amount  of  digestible  protein. 


26 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


The  above  facts  are  mentioned  so  that  the  reader  will  not  be  misled 
when  he  compares  the  total  amount  of  grain  that  each  cow  in  this  herd 
consumed  with  the  total  amount  of  grain  consumed  by  each  cow  in  some 
other  herd.  When  the  cows  in  this  herd  were  not  receiving  grano-gluten 
they  were  receiving  gluten  meal  which  is  a  by-product  of  glucose  refining 
companies.  This  feed  is  also  very  rich  in  protein.  It  contains  about 
thirty-two  per  cent  of  digestible  protein.  These  facts  demonstrate 
very  clearly  that  it  often  pays  farmers  to  sell  some  of  their  oats  or  corn 
and  buy  some  such  by-products  as  gluten  meal,  gluten  feed,  grano- 
gluten,  oil  meal,  or  dried  brewer's  grains,  etc. 


YEAKLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  D, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  No.  129  

8,949 

4.52 

404 

472 

Poorest  cow,  No.  324. 

3364 

4  06 

136 

159 

Average  record  of  entire  herd  ..... 

5,911 

4.45 

263 

306 

Cow  No.  147  made  butter  fat  the  cheapest.  She  charged  7.5  cents 
to  produce  one  pound  of  butter  fat  and  35.5  cents  to  produce  100  pounds 
of  milk. 


CUT  10.     Cow  No.  283,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  10,151  Ln.  MILK  ; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.68%;  436  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $45.36. 


1903.] 


RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


27 


CUT  11.     Cow  No.  317,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAK  10,059  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.79%;  445  LB.  BUTTER;' NET  PROFIT,  $48.94. 


CUT  12.     Cow  No.  147,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  7,890  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.70%;  432  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $57.22. 


28 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


CUT  13.     Cow  No.  199,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  6,132  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST.  4.75%;  340  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $31.54. 


CUT  14.     Cow  No.  44,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  3,399  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.58%;   181  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  Loss,  18  CENTS. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


29 


CUT  15.     Cow  No.  184,  HERD  D,  WITH  Two  QUARTERS  OF  HER  UDDER  GONE, 

GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  7,997  LB.  MILK;  AVERAGE  TEST,  4.77%; 

445  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $49.42. 


CUT  16.     Cow  No.  95,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  7,615  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.85%:  430  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $42.85. 


30 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


CUT  17.     Cow  No.  337,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  3,443  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.46%;   179  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $2.52. 


CUT  18.     Cow  No.  263,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  4,887  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.04%;  230  LB.  BUTTER;   NET  PROFIT,  $18.99. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


31 


CTJT  19.     Cow  No.  40,  HERD  D,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  6,575  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.23%;  248  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $17.09. 

Cow  No.  44  charged  the  most  to  make  butter  fat.  She  charged 
22.4  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat  and  $1.03  to  make  100  pounds 
of  milk. 

The  average  cost  to  produce  one  pound  of  butter  fat  was  12.3  cents 
and  54.9  cents  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk. 

Cow  No.  147  gave  a  profit  of  $57.22  and  cow  No.  44  charged  18  cents 
for  her  board. 

\  The  average  profit  of  each  cow  in  the  herd  was  $26.64.  While  the 
average  profit  is  very  good,  it  would,  perhaps,  have  been  better  if  the 
owner  could  have  personally  looked  after  his  cows.  The  cows  were 
cared  for  entirely  by  hired  help. 

TABLE  8. — SHOWING  PROFIT  OR  Loss  FOR  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  D  "  FOR  ONE 

YEAR. 


GROUP  1. — KEPT  AT  A  Loss. 


Lb. 

No.  of  cow. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

Fat, 
Ib. 

of 

but- 

Gross 
returns. 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or  loss. 

ter. 

44  

3,399 

4.58 

155 

181 

$34.85 

$35  03 

$0.18 

32 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


TABLE  8 — Continued. 
GROUP  2. — KEPT  AT  A  SMALL  PROFIT. 


Lb. 

No.  of  cow. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

of 
but- 

Gross 
returns. 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or  loss. 

ter. 

337                              .... 

3,443 

4  46 

153 

179 

$35  29 

$32  77 

$2  52 

324  

3,364 

4.06 

136 

159 

33.15 

29.12 

4.03 

308  

4,617 

3.83 

177 

206 

40.17 

33.80 

6  37 

323  

4,069 

4.15 

169 

197 

40.67 

33.92 

6.75 

GROUP  3. — KEPT  AT  A  FAIR  PROFIT. 


22  . 

3,187 
4,389 
5,266 
3,777 
4,823 
4,700 

4.35 

4.40 
3.61 
4.99 
4.07 
4.72 

138 
193 
190 
188 
196 
222 

161 
225 
222 
220 
229 
259 

$29.46 
40.47 
44.30 
41.86 
46.03 
46.76 

$19.07 
29.22 
32.67 
30.00 
33.50 
32.16 

$10.39 
11.25 
11.63 
11.86 
12.53 
14.60 

227  

272  

310     ..      ..            

264  

99  

GROUP  4.  —  KEPT  AT  A  VERY  FAIR  PROFIT. 

138  . 

5,449 
6,575 
5,257 
5,446 
4,887 
4,796 
4,958 
4,462 
5,505 
5,285 
5,414 

3.99 
3.23 
4.05 
4.30 
4.04 
5.00 
4.51 
5.26 
4.19 
4.79 
4.36 

217 
212 
213 
234 
197 
239 
223 
235 
230 
253 
236 

253 
248 
248 
273 
230 
279 
261 
274 
269 
295 
275 

$49.41 
45.83 
50.07 
52.73 
41.90 
54.11 
51.70 
55.03 
50.14 
57.64 
56.54 

$34.09 
28.74 
32.09 
33.94 
22.91 
34.88 
32.13 
33.88 
28.53 
34.07 
32.70 

$15.32 
17.09 
17.98 
18.79 
18.99 
19.23 
19.57 
21.15 
21.61 
23.57 
23.84 

40  

240  

325  

263  

336               

20  

13  

180  

326  

335  

GROUP  5.  —  KEPT  AT  A  GOOD  PROFIT. 

161  

5,731 
7,979 
5,481 
6,732 
5,477 
5,201 
6,407 
7,199 
6,132 
5,551 
5,500 

4.70 
3.75 

4.57 
4.34 
5.60 
5.07 
4.00 
4.36 
4.75 
5.14 
4.85 

269 
299 
250 
292 
306 
263 
256 
313 
291 
285 
266 

314 

349 
292 
341 
357 
307 
299 
366 
340 
332 
311 

$57.00 
67.06 
54.63 
63.83 
69.31 
61.90 
59.74 
69.15 
64.04 
65.86 
59.40 

$31.65 
41.59 
27.62 
35.95 
39.44 
32.03 
29.02 
37.61 
32.50 
33.94 
27.27 

$25.35 
25.47 
27.01 
27.88 
29.87 
29.87 
30.72 
31.54 
31.54 
31.92 
32.13 

309  

112  

70  

190  v 

210  

114  

38  

199  

80  

87  

GROUP  6.  —  KEPT  AT  A  VERY  GOOD  PROFIT. 

113  . 

5,577 

6,286 
6,549 
6,581 
7,615 
6,811 

4.99 
4.46 
4.62 
4.76 
4.85 
4.79 

278 
280 
302 
313 
369 
326 

324 
327 
353 

366 
430 
380 

$58.01 
61.19 
71.29 
69.10 
79.30 
74.20 

$24.80 
25.23 
35.07 
31.68 
36.45 
29.27 

$33.21 
35.96 
36.22 

37.42 
42.85 
44.93 

109  

46  

247  

95  

249  

1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


33 


TABLE  8 — Continued. 
GROUP  7. — KEPT  AT  AN  EXCELLENT  PROFIT. 


No.  of  cow. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb. 
of 
but- 
ter. 

Gross 
returns. 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Profit 
or  loss. 

283  

10,151 

3  68 

374 

436 

$87.13 

$41.77 

$45.36 

129       

8,949 

4  52 

404 

472 

87.33 

40.44 

46.89 

206  

7,130 

4.71 

336 

392 

78.30 

31.27 

47.03 

262  

9,272 

4.01 

372 

434 

84.78 

37.74 

47.04 

102  

6,501 

5.46 

355 

414 

82.20 

34.88 

47.32 

317       

10,059 

3  79 

381 

445 

86  95 

38.01 

48.94 

184  

7,997 

4.77 

382 

445 

83.77 

34.35 

49.42 

147  

7,890 

4.70 

371 

432 

85.24 

28.02 

57.22 

TABLE  9. — RECORD  OP  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  D  "  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


GROUP  1 . — Cows  PRODUCING  LESS  THAN  200  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


No.  of  cow. 

Age, 

y. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 
but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

324  . 

10-15-01 

3,364 

4  06 

136 

159 

230 

22  

10 

Native  .  .  . 

3-  7-02 

3,187 

4.35 

138 

161 

225 

337  

3 

« 

11-  1-01 

3,443 

4  46 

153 

179 

304 

44  . 

8 

Gr.  Jersey 

3-  1-01 

3,399 

4  58 

155 

181 

365 

323  

10-29-01 

4,069 

4.15 

169 

197 

245 

308  

8-15-01 

4,617 

3.83 

177 

206 

320 

310  

4 

Native  .  .  . 

7-21-02 

3,777 

4  99 

188 

220 

330 

272  . 

8-11-02 

4,389 

3  61 

190 

222 

350 

227  

7 

Gr.  Hoist. 

5-28-02 

5,266 

4.40 

193 

225 

274 

264  

7 

Native  .  .  . 

10-  6-01 

4,823 

4  07 

196 

229 

303 

263  . 

7 

Gr.  Hoist. 

4-13-02 

4,887 

4  04 

197 

230 

218 

GROUP  2. — Cows  PRODUCING  LESS  THAN  225  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


40  ... 

q 

Native  .  .  . 

3-23-02 

6,575 

3.23 

212 

248 

274 

240  . 

5 

Gr.  Hoist. 

12-  1-01 

5,257 

4  05 

213 

248 

323 

138  . 

6 

Gr.  S.  H. 

8-24-01 

5,449 

3  99 

217 

253 

275 

99  . 

7 

Native  . 

5-  1-02 

4,700 

4  72 

222 

259 

304 

20  . 

5 

Gr.  S.  H. 

11-15-01 

4,958 

4  51 

223 

261 

270 

GROUP  3. — Cows  PRODUCING  LESS  THAN  275  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


180  

3-16-02 

5,505 

4.19 

230 

269 

267 

325  .  . 

5 

Native  . 

4-13-02 

5,446 

4  30 

234 

273 

300 

13  

q 

Jersey.  .  .  . 

12-  1-01 

4,462 

5.26 

235 

274 

302 

335  . 

8 

Native  . 

10-27-02 

5414 

4  36 

236 

275 

305 

336  

11-  1-01 

4,796 

5  00 

239 

279 

340 

112  . 

10 

Gr.  Jersey 

3_23-02 

5,481 

4  57 

250 

292 

262 

326  . 

7 

Native  . 

10-  6-01 

5,285 

4  79 

253 

295 

335 

114  

10 

u 

1-  5-02 

6,407 

4.00 

256 

299 

275 

210  

10 

a 

12-  8-01 

5,201 

5.07 

263 

307 

305 

87  . 

q 

u 

2-23-02 

5,500 

4  85 

266 

311 

253 

161  . 

7 

Gr.  Jersey 

4-13-02 

5,731 

4  70 

269 

314 

300 

34 


BULLETIN   NO.    85. 


[June, 


TABLE  9 — Continued. 
GROUP  4.— Cows  PRODUCING  LESS  THAN  325  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


No.  of  cow. 

Age, 

yr. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.of 
but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

113  . 

9 

Native.. 

3-23-02 

5  577 

4  99 

278 

324 

295 

109  . 

9 

« 

3-23-02 

6286 

4  46 

280 

327 

260 

80  

H_24-01 

5,551 

5  14 

285 

332 

309 

199  

8 

Gr.  Jersey 

3-13-02 

6,132 

4  75 

291 

340 

309 

70  

11 

Native...  . 

6-  2-02 

6732 

4  34 

292 

341 

330 

309  

7-21-01 

7,979 

3  75 

299 

349 

365 

46  

11 

Native  .  .  . 

11-  3-01 

6,549 

4  62 

302 

353 

302 

190  

11 

Gr.  Jersey 

6-20-01 

5,477 

5  60 

306 

357 

365 

247  

10 

Native  .  .  . 

3_25_02 

6581 

4  76 

313 

366 

274 

38  

10 

Gr.  Jersey 

8-  4-02 

7,199 

4  36 

313 

366 

265 

GROUP  5. — Cows  PRODUCING  LESS  THAN  405  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


249  . 

g 

Native  . 

1_19_02 

6  811 

4  79 

326 

380 

211 

206  . 

q 

10-20-01 

7  130 

4  71 

336 

392 

350 

102  . 

7 

Gr.  Jersey 

11-17-01 

6  501 

5  46 

355 

414 

300 

95  . 

6 

Native  . 

6-12-01 

7  615 

4  85 

369 

430 

300 

147  

8 

a 

12-  1-01 

7,890 

4  70 

371 

432 

275 

262  

8 

it 

10-  6-01 

9,272 

4  01 

372 

434 

330 

283  

8 

Gr.  Hoist. 

12-  1-01 

10,151 

3  68 

374 

436 

316 

317  . 

5 

Holstein 

9-22-01 

10059 

3  79 

381 

445 

365 

184  

10 

Gr.  Jersey 

3_  9_02 

7,997 

4  77 

382 

445 

335 

129  

10 

Gr.  Hoist. 

11-15-02 

8,949 

4  52 

404 

472 

325 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "  E. " 

This  was  a  small  dairy  of  seven  cows,  but  each  one  proved  herself  to  be 
a  profitable  animal.  The  herd  consisted  of  grade  Ayrshires,  natives,  and 
one  grade  Jersey;  the  average  weight  was  950  pounds.  The  cows  were 
well  fed  and  cared  for  during  the  test,  and  at  the  end  of  the  year  they  were 
in  good  healthy  condition.  No  caked  udders,  abortions,  or  other  mis- 
haps came  to  this  herd  during  the  year  and  no  cows  were  sold,  for  every 
one  in  the  herd  gave  the  owner  a  good  profit.  Nearly  all  the  cows 
came  fresh  the  last  of  September  and  the  first  of  October,  and  went 
dry  in  August.  It  was  a  winter  dairy. 

In  October  and  November  the  cows  received  five  pounds  of  bran, 
five  pounds  of  corn  meal,  corn  stover,  and  some  pasture. 

In  December  and  to  January  15  they  received  the  following: 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS. 


35 


CUT  20.     JENNIE,  HERD  E,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  4,449  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  5.01%;  260  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $35.17. 

RATION  12. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Grano-gluten  

2  5 

2  35 

667 

.970 

.305 

2.2c 

Bran  

6.0 

5.31 

.774 

2.406 

.204 

5.4c 

Corn  and  cob  meal  . 

4  0 

3  40 

176 

2  400 

116 

4  Oc 

MiUet  

5  0 

4.40 

160 

2.425 

.050 

2.5c 

Stover  .    .    . 

10  0 

5  95 

170 

3  240 

070 

2.0c 

Total  nutrients  . 

21  41 

1  947 

11  441 

745 

16  Ic 

This  is  not  only  a  balanced  ration  but  it  contains  a  variety  of  food 
stuffs  and  is  palatable.  Palatability  should  always  be  considered  in 
making  up  a  ration  for  a  dairy  cow. 

From  January  15  to  March  1  the  cows  received  the  following 
ration:  Six  pounds  of  bran,  three  pounds  of  grano-gluten,  five  pounds 
of  timothy  hay,  and  all  the  corn  stover  they  would  eat  up  clean. 

In  March  and  to  April  the  10th,  they  received  2.5  pounds  of  bran, 
2.5  pounds  of  grano-gluten,  five  pounds  timothy  hay,  and  corn  stover 
ad  libitum. 

The  first  part  of  April  the  cows  were  turned  out  to  rye  pasture,  and 
about  the  15th  of  May  were  turned  to  blue-grass  pasture.  The 
herd  was  given  no  grain  from  April  10  to  the  completion  of  the  year's 
work.  It  might  be  said  that  the  rye  pasture  was  plowed  up  and 


36 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


CUT  21.     PET    HERD  E,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  7,488  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  4.56%;  398  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $48.07. 

planted  to  corn — in  other  words,  this  farmer  had  a  good  pasture  for  a 
month  by  simply  sowing  his  intended  corn  ground  to  rye  in  the  fall. 
The  cows  liked  the  rye  pasture  so  well  that  they  cared  nothing  for  grain 
when  they  were  grazing  in  this  field. 

YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  E, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  Brindle. 

7,828 

4  41 

345 

403 

Poorest  cow,  Star    

5,398 

3.89 

210 

245 

Average  record  of  entire  herd  

6,474 

4.19 

271 

317 

Brindle  charged  39.1  cents  to  make  100  pounds  of  milk,  and  8.8 
cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Star  charged  54.4  cents  to  make  100  pounds  of  milk,  and  13.9 
cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

The  average  cost  of  production  was  43.8  cents  to  make  100  pounds 
of  milk,  and  10.4  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Brindle  gave  the  largest  profit,  which  was  $49.97,  and  Star 
the  least,  which  was  $20.54. 

The  average  profit  for  each  cow  in  the  dairy  was  $35.80. 

There  were  no  unprofitable  cows  in  this  herd,  for  the  owner  has 
always  given  considerable  attention  to  the  selection  of  his  dairy  animals. 


1903.]  RECORDS   OF   INDIVIDUAL   COWS.  37 

TABLE  10. — SHOWING  PROFIT  FOR  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  E  "  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


Name  of  cow. 

Milk,  Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat. 
Ib. 

Butter, 
Ib. 

Gross 
returns  . 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Net 
profit. 

Star  

5,398.4 

3.89 

210.42 

245.49 

$49.91 

$29.37 

$20.54 

Red  Ellis  

5,707.3 

4  09 

233.89 

272.87 

55.23 

28.48 

26.75 

Line  Back  

6,552.9 

4  08 

267.50 

312.08 

65.54 

30.66 

34  88 

Jennie  

4,449.9 

5  01 

223  30 

260  51 

54  66 

19  49 

35  17 

Blacky. 

7,896.7 

3  55 

280  44 

327.18 

65  94 

30  69 

35  25 

Pet  

7,488.9 

4.56 

341.95 

398.94 

77.44 

29.37 

48.07 

Brindle  .  . 

7.828.7 

4.41 

345.73 

403.35 

80.63 

30.66 

49.97 

TABLE  11. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "E"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


Name  of 
cow. 

Age, 

yr- 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 

but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Star. 

3.5 

H.  &  J 

10-15-02 

5398 

3  89 

210 

245 

320 

Jennie  

6 

Jersey.  .    .  . 

1_  8-02 

4,449 

5  01 

223 

260 

245 

Red  Ellis  .  .  . 
Line  Back  .  . 
Blacky  
Pet  

6 
5 
4 
8 

J.  &S.H... 

Native  

Gr.  Ayrshire  . 

9-20-01 
9-20-01 
9-15-01 
9-25-01 

5,707 
6,552 
7,896 
7,488 

4.09 
4.08 
3.55 
4.56 

233 
267 
280 
341 

272 
312 
327 
398 

315 
275 
280 
330 

Brindle  .... 

9 

ii        u 

9-28-01 

7,828 

4.41 

345 

403 

327 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "  F. " 

There  were  fourteen  full-blood  Holstein  cows  in  this  herd  that  were 
tested;  their  average  weight  was  about  1,050  pounds.  A  few  of  the 
cows  that  did  not  enter  the  test  were  disposed  of  before  the  end  of  the 
year  for  they  had  already  proved  themselves  to  be  inferior  and  unprof- 
itable animals.  Less  than  half  the  dairy  was  matured  cows.  The  herd 
was  well  cared  for,  but  they  did  not  receive  a  very  large  grain  ration 
during  the  year,  for  the  owner  thought  it  would  be  more  profitable  to 
make  less  milk  and  butter  fat  than  it  would  be  to  buy  feed  for  his  cows ; 
the  price  of  all  kinds  of  grain  being  so  very  high  last  year. 

The  herd  was  kept  in  comfortable  quarters,  was  in  healthy  condition 
during  the  test,  and  did  a  good  year's  work  considering  the  grain  that 
was  given  them. 

The  first  period  of  the  test  the  cows  received  a  good  ration  which 
contained  the  following  food  stuffs : 


38 


BULLETIN   NO.    85. 


[Junr, 


CUT  22.     CHECK,  HERD  F,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  6,812  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.16%;  251  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $19.30. 


RATION  13. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 

matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Bran  

4 

3  54 

516 

1.604 

.136 

3.6c 

Oats  . 

4 

3  56 

368 

1  892 

168 

4  4c 

Clover  hay  

5 

4.23 

.340 

1.790 

.085 

2.5c 

Stover. 

10 

5  95 

170 

3  240 

070 

2  Oc 

Silage  

35 

7  31 

315 

3.955 

245 

3.5c 

Total  nutrients.  . 

24.59 

1.709 

12.481 

.704 

16.  Oc 

This  is  a  very  good  ration  for  it  contains  a  variety  of  feeds  and  enough 
nutrients  for  cows  giving  good  flows  of  milk.  The  dry  grains  and  dry 
roughage  are  mixed  and  in  about  the  right  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
corn  silage.  It  is,  perhaps,  a  little  deficient  in  protein  for  heavy  milking 
cows. 

The  second  period  of  the  test  the  cows  received  no  grain.  The  ration 
consisted  of  thirty-five  pounds  of  corn  silage,  five  pounds  clover  hay, 
and  all  the  corn  stover  they  would  eat.  Each  cow  shrank  considerably 
in  milk  flow,  and  the  average  percent  of  fat  was  less  during  this  period. 
The  cows  received  the  following  ration  from  the  first  of  February  until 
they  were  turned  out  to  grass : 


1903.1 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


39 


CUT  23.     MAID,  HERD  F,  GAVE  IN  ONE  YEAR  5,979  LB.  MILK; 
AVERAGE  TEST,  3.34%;  233  LB.  BUTTER;  NET  PROFIT,  $17.95. 


RATION  14. 


Food  stuffs. 

Lb. 

Dry 
matter. 

Pro- 
tein. 

Carbohy- 
drates. 

Fat. 

Cost. 

Grano-gluten  

? 

1  88 

.534 

.776 

248 

1  8c 

Silage  

35 

7  31 

315 

3  955 

245 

3  5c 

Clover  hay 

5 

4  23 

340 

1  790 

085 

2  5c 

Corn  stover  . 

10 

5  95 

170 

3  240 

070 

2  Oc 

Total  nutrients  

19.37 

1.359 

9.761 

648 

9.8c 

Oat  straw,  ad  libitum. 

This  is  a  better  ration  than  the  one  that  was  fed  during  the  second 
period  of  the  test,  and  there  was  an  increase  in  milk  flow  and  an  increase 
in  percent  of  fat.  The  cows  were  turned  out  to  pasture  about  June 
19.  The  owner  did  not  have  enough  pasturage  to  feed  his  herd  entirely 
so  the  ration  was  supplemented  with  thirty  pounds  of  corn  silage  a  day. 
This  ration  was  continued  to  the  completion  of  the  test.  Tt  is  the  belief 
of  the  owner  that  the  cows  would  have  given  a  larger  profit  if  he  had  fed 
them  more  grain.  While  the  above  facts  do  not  demonstrate  that  the 
herd  would  have  been  more  profitable  with  better  feeding,  yet,  judging 
by  the  individuality  of  each  of  the  cows,  better  results  might  have  been 
expected  if  more  grain  had  been  fed.  The  cows  were  certainly  capable 


40 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June, 


of  giving  more  milk  and  butter  fat  than  the  records  show,  if  they  had 
received  a  better  ration. 


YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "F, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  Princess  

7,817 

3  35 

262 

305 

Poorest  cow,  Mittie  

3,461 

3.19 

110 

128 

Average  record  of  entire  herd  . 

5  846 

3  32 

194 

227 

Princess,  the  best  cow,  charged  33.5  cents  to  produce  100  pounds 
of  milk,  and  10  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat;  and  Mittie 
charged  62.3  cents  to  produce  100  pounds  of  milk,  and  19.5  cents  to 
make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

The  average  cost  of  production  was  42.9  cents  to  yield  100  pounds 
of  milk,  and  12.9  cents  to  make  one  pound  of  butter  fat. 

Princess  gave  a  profit  of  $32.63  and  Mittie  a  profit  of  $2.75. 

The  average  profit  for  each  cow  in  the  dairy  was  $18.58. 


TABLE  12. — SHOWING  PROFIT  FOR  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "F"  FOR  ONE 

YEAR. 


GROUP  1. — KEPT  AT  A  PROFIT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Milk,  Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat,  Ib. 

Lb.  of       Gross 
butter,     returns  . 

Cost  of 
feed. 

Net 
profit. 

Mittie  . 

3,461  8 

3  19 

110  54 

128  96      $24  33 

$21  58 

$2.75 

Ladv  . 

4,386  4 

3  39 

149  05 

173  89        34  41 

22  66 

11  75 

Joe's  Bride   .  . 

5,136.7 

3  00 

154  32 

180  04        32.31 

20.47 

11.84 

Loma  

5,677  1 

3  14 

178  44 

208  18        40  96 

27.85 

13.11 

Bell  . 

5,050  2 

3  61 

182  56 

212  98        38  89 

23  94 

14.95 

Maid  . 

5979  1 

3  34 

200  12 

233  47        44  22 

26  27 

17  95 

GROUP  2. — KEPT  AT  A  FAIR  PROFIT. 


Mutual  . 

5,586  5 

3  25 

181  82 

212  12   i  $41  07 

$22.11 

$18.96 

Check  . 

6812  6 

3  16 

215  79 

251  75        50  22 

30  92 

19  30 

Maud  

5,426  9 

3  39 

184  36 

215.08  i     42.54 

22.66 

19.88 

Zipsv 

6,219  2 

3  53 

219  73 

256.35        49.03 

26.57 

22.46 

Echo  . 

6,039  6 

3  66 

221   16 

258  02        50  03 

27.52 

22.51 

1 

GROUP  3. — KEPT  AT  A  GOOD  PROFIT. 


Zur. 

6,610  0 

3  29 

218  01 

254  34 

$49.58      $25.55      $24.03 

Alfrida. 

7,641  5 

3  22 

246  10 

287  11 

55  55        27.52        28.03 

Princess.  .  . 

7.817.4 

3.35 

262.28 

305.99 

58.88        26.25        32.63 

1903.]  RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL    COWS.  41 

TABLE  13. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  F"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 
GROUP  1. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  180  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Name  of  cow. 

Age, 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk. 
Ib.  ' 

Fat, 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 

but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Mittie  

3 

Holstein  . 

7-17-02 

3,461 

3.19 

110 

128 

260 

Lady  

4 

12-  1-01 

4,386 

3.39 

149 

173 

300 

Joe's  Bride  

q 

« 

4-  5-02 

5,136 

3.00 

154 

180 

275 

Loma  

1?! 

u 

2-13-02 

5,677 

3.14 

178 

208 

235 

GROUP  2. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  205  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Mutual 

?, 

Holstein 

11-18-01  j    5,586 

3  25 

181 

212 

315 

Belle  

3 

• 

5-28-02       5,050 

3.61 

182 

212 

302 

Maud  

3 

« 

12-  1-01       5,426 

3  39 

184 

215 

300 

Maid  .... 

3 

« 

10-  9-01       5,979 

3  34 

200 

233 

330 

GROUP  3. — Cows  YIELDING  LESS  THAN  275  LB.  OF  BUTTER  FAT. 


Check  

15 

Holstein 

1-23-02 

6,812 

3  16 

215 

251 

252 

Zur  

?, 

a 

1-31-01 

6,610 

3  29 

218 

254 

305 

Ziosv  . 

3 

u 

10-13-01 

6,219 

3  53 

219 

256 

335 

Echo  ;  . 

4 

u 

10-11-01 

6,039 

3.66 

221 

258 

334 

Alfrida  . 

7 

u 

10-14-01 

7641 

3  22 

246 

287 

336 

Princess  . 

4 

u 

8-26-01 

7,817 

3  35 

262 

305 

330 

REPORT  OF  HERD  "  G. " 

There  were  only  five  cows  in  this  herd  at  the  beginning  of  the  test 
and  two  of  them  were  sold  three  months  after  the  work  began.  The 
strange  thing  about  the  selling  of  these  animals  was  that  they  were  good 
cows,  for  they  had  averaged  1\  pounds  of  butter  fat  a  week  up  to  the 
time  that  they  were  disposed  of.  The  herd  was  not  well  fed  or  cared 
for,  but  did  a  very  fair  year's  work,  notwithstanding.  The  cows  were 
not  kept  in  a  comfortable  barn,  or  one  that  was  well  cleaned.  The 
dairy  with  this  man  was,  so  to  speak,  a  sort  of  necessary  evil. 

The  amount  of  grain  and  roughage  that  each  cow  consumed  during 
the  year  was  not  kept,  so  there  is  no  feed  account  reported. 

TABLE  14. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  G"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


Name  of  cow. 

Breed. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 
butter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Jersey 

Gr.  Jersey 

3  644 

3  96 

144 

168 

275 

Mollie  

Native  

3,930 

3  94 

155 

180 

210 

Lucv  . 

• 

7.021 

3.94 

277 

323 

280 

42 


BULLETIN    XO.    85. 


[June. 


REPORT  OF  HERD  "H." 

This  herd  consisted  of  eight  native  cows  whose  average  weight  was 
about  1,000  pounds.  The  cows  were  very  ordinary  animals  and  they 
did  a  very  ordinary  year's  work.  The  most  of  them  calved  in  March., 
and  were  dry  by  the  first  of  November,  the  owner  not  trying  to  make 
milk  in  winter.  The  barn  in  which  these  cows  were  kept  was  very  poor, 
being  cold  and  poorly  cared  for.  The  stock  was  often  exposed  to  cold, 
rain,  and  snowstorms,  and  the  frozen  snow  and  ice  was  often  removed 
with  brooms  from  the  animals'  backs. 

In  March  and  April  the  cows  received  a  small  amount  of  bran  and 
corn  meal  and  about  one  pound  of  oil  meal  a  day,  with  clover  hay  and 
corn  stover.  By  May  15  the  cows  were  turned  into  a  pasture  which 
was  not  very  good,  the  greater  portion  of  it  being  woods.  They  received 
in  connection  with  pasturage  about  two  pounds  of  bran  a  day,  but  this 
was  not  enough  grain  when  the  kind  of  pasture  is  considered.  The 
latter  part  of  July  the  cows  were  changed  to  a  good  clover  pasture. 


TABLE  15. — SHOWING  RECORD  OF  Two  Cows  EVERY  SEVENTH  WEEK  DURING 
THEIR  PERIOD  OF  LACTATION. 


FANNY. 


Week  ending. 

Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

March  31  

192.4 

3.2 

6.16 

7.18 

May  19  

142  4 

4.3 

6.12 

7.14 

July  7  

84  3 

4  0 

3  37 

3.93 

August  25  

7.0 

6.9 

.48 

.56 

LILY. 


May  19  

171 

3.9 

6.67 

7.78 

Julv  17  

99 

3.5 

3.47 

4.04 

August  25 

123  9 

3  6 

4  46 

5.20 

October  27  . 

75.2 

4.1 

3.08 

3.59 

These  tables  are  good  examples  of  the  milk  and  butter  fat  yield  of  all 
the  cows  at  different  times  during  the  test.  They  clearly  show  that 
the  cows  were  not  persistent  milkers.  The  individuality  of  the 
cows,  the  poor  care,  and  the  poor  feeding  which  they  received,  un- 
doubtedly caused  the  rapid  decline  in  milk  and  butter  fat  production 
from  one  period  to  the  next  and  their  short  period  of  lactation. 

The  cows  gave  more  milk  and  butter  fat  in  the  August  test  than 
they  did  in  July.  This  was  probably  due  to  the  fact  that  the  cows  were 
taken  from  a  poor  wood  pasture  the  last  of  July  and  put  into  a  good 
clover  pasture. 


1903.] 


RECORDS    OF   INDIVIDUAL    COWS. 


43 


YEARLY  RECORD  OF  BEST  AND  POOREST  Cow  IN  HERD  "  H, "  AND  AVERAGE  FOR 

ENTIRE  HERD. 


Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Fat,  Ib. 

Butter,  Ib. 

Best  cow,  Jessie  

5,420 

4.08 

221 

258 

Poorest  cow,  Fanny     

2,398 

3.92 

94 

109 

Average  record  of  entire  herd  

3,852 

4.02 

155 

180 

TABLE  16. — RECORD  OF  EACH  Cow  IN  HERD  "  H"  FOR  ONE  YEAR. 


Name  of  cow. 

Age, 

yr. 

Breed. 

Date  of 
calving. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Fat, 
Ib. 

Lb.  of 
but- 
ter. 

Days 
in 
milk. 

Fannv  

Native  .  .  . 

3-20-02 

2,398 

3.92 

94 

109 

195 

Lucv  . 

?, 

u 

3-31-02 

2,843 

4.31 

122 

143 

230 

Bess  . 

4 

u 

2-20-02 

3,895 

3  70 

144 

168 

240 

Lily  . 

? 

u 

3-25-02 

3,937 

3.80 

149 

174 

225 

Liza  . 

5 

u 

3-13-02 

3,980 

4  07 

162 

189 

230 

Reddie  . 

6 

II 

l_2l_02 

3  848 

4  23 

163 

190 

235 

Belle  

7 

u 

3_23_02 

4,498 

4  07 

183 

213 

215 

Jessie  .  . 

8 

It 

3-22-02 

5.420 

4.08 

221 

258 

216 

It  is  perhaps  well  to  compare  the  performance  of  eight  of  the  poorest 
cows  as  well  as  eight  of  the  best  cows  kept  in  different  herds,  and  also 
compare  the  average  production  and  profit  of  each  herd  tested.  This 
is  done  to  show  the  great  differences,  even  among  the  poorest  and  best 
cows,  and  also  the  difference  in  production  and  profit  between  herds  of 
cows  kept  upon  the  farms  of  Illinois. 

TABLE  17. — COMPARING  THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  THE  POOREST  Cows  KEPT  IN 

DIFFERENT  HERDS. 


Cow. 

Herd. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat. 

% 

Lb.  of 
butter. 

Net 
profit  or 
loss. 

Cost  of 
100  Jb. 
of  milk. 

Cost  of 
1  Ib.  of 
fat. 

No.  37  

'A" 

1,482 

3.97 

68 

$-*17.83 

$2.07 

52.  2c 

Harrison  

'C" 

2,721 

3  96 

126 

-  1.27 

.97 

24.  6c 

Red  Bird. 

'B" 

4  974 

3  04 

176 

-  1  28 

70 

23  2c 

No.  44   

•D" 

3,399 

4  58 

181 

—       18 

1  03 

22  4c 

Mittie  .  . 

<F" 

3461 

3  19 

128 

2  75 

62 

19  5c 

Star  

<E" 

5,398 

3  89 

245 

20.54 

.54 

13.  9c 

Jersey  . 

(G" 

3  644 

3  96 

168 

Fanny   .  . 

'H" 

2,398 

3  92 

109 

*  This  is  estimated  on  the  basis  that  it  took  140  Ib.  of  butter  fat  to  pay  for  feed. 


44 


BULLETIN    NO.    85. 


[June,  1903. J 


TABLE  18. — COMPARING  THE  PERFORMANCE  OF  THE  BEST  Cows  KEPT  IN 
DIFFERENT  HERDS. 


Cow. 

Herd. 

Milk, 
Ib. 

Fat, 

% 

Lb.  of 
butter. 

Net 
profit. 

Cost  of 
100  Ib. 
of  milk. 

Cost  of 
1  Ib.  of 
fat. 

Jersey  

'<?' 

5,498 

4.48 

287 

$34.77 

29.  7c 

6  6c 

No.  147  

<D" 

7,890 

4.70 

432 

57.22 

35.  5c 

7.5c 

Brindle  .                      .    . 

'E" 

7,828 

4.41 

403 

49  97 

39.  Ic 

8  8c 

Princess  

<p» 

7,817 

3.35 

305 

32.63 

33.  5c 

10.  Oc 

Spotty  No.l  

<B" 

7,711 

3.20 

288 

25.32 

40.  7c 

12  6c 

No.  15     

'A" 

6,145 

3.63 

260 

*18.40 

50.  Ic 

13  7c 

Lucy  . 

'G" 

7,021 

3.94 

323 

Jessie  

'H" 

5,420 

4.08 

258 

*  This  is  estimated  on  the  basis  that  it  took  140  Ib.  of  butter  fat  to  pay  for  feed. 

TABLE  19. — COMPARING  THE  AVERAGE  PERFORMANCE  OF  ALL  THE  Cows  IN  EACH 
OF  THE  HERDS  TESTED. 


Herd. 

Milk,  Ib. 

Fat,  % 

Lb.  of 
butter. 

Net 
profit  or 
loss. 

Cost  of 
100  Ib. 
of  milk. 

Cost  of 
1  Ib.  of 
fat. 

"A"  . 

3,361 

3  55 

139 

$-4.54 

92.  5c 

25  8c 

"B".,  

5,360 

3.52 

220 

12.12 

57.  Oc 

16.  Ic 

"C"  .   . 

4,942 

3.90 

224 

16.22 

55.  5c 

14.  2c 

"  JT" 

5,846 

3.32 

227 

18.58 

42.  9c 

12.  9c 

"  D  "  .  . 

5,911 

4.45 

306 

26.64 

54.  9c 

12.  3c 

"  E  "  

6,474 

4.19 

317 

35.80 

43.  8c 

10.  4c 

"G". 

4,865 

3.95 

224 

"H" 

3,852 

4  02 

180 

TABLE  20. — COMPARING  THE  RESULTS  FROM  THE  Six  MOST  PROFITABLE  Cows  IN 
HERD  "  D  "  WITH  THE  RESULTS  FROM  FIVE  OTHER  HERDS. 


Herd. 

No.  of  cows 
in  herd. 

Lb.  milk. 

Lb.  butter. 

Total 
profit. 

Total 
loss. 

<<D" 

6 

50,669 

2,644 

$296.97 

<'A". 

28 

94,126 

3,899 

$127.12 

''B". 

20 

107,217 

4,409 

242  41 

''C" 

17 

84,014 

3,823 

275  90 

''E". 

7 

45,322 

2,220 

250.63 

<'F" 

14 

81,845 

3,178 

260.15 

This  table  simply  shows  that  a  few  good  cows  will  yield  a  greater 
profit  than  large  herds  of  unselected  animals.  It  was  found  in  herd 
"D,"  that  fifteen  of  the  best  cows  gave  a  profit  of  $651.94  while  the 
other  thirty-two  cows  gave  a  profit  of  only  $600.24,  or,  the  fifteen  cows 
gave  the  owner  $51.70  more  profit  than  the  other  thirty-two  cows.  It 
shows  very  clearly  that  it  is  far  better  to  keep  a  few  very  good  cows 
than  large  herds  of  our  ordinary  cows.  The  work  is  less  and  profit  larger. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBAN* 


